Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Classical · 05-12-2006, 05:42 PM

It almost seems heartless and cruel the way we gang up on a Fundie all excited about the latest archaeological hoax - how mercilessly we expose the error of their claims - how ruthlessly we call a spade a spade - how generous we are with our sarcasm.

The last thread about the Wyatt chariot wheels just suddenly stopped after it started to get really fun. Any ideas on how we can drag these threads out a little longer?

Classical (very full of the devil tonight) :devil3:

(Oh, StaceyMelissa, where are you?)

Clivedurdle · 05-13-2006, 02:57 AM

Use Macchivelian techniques? We start a rumour about something, like fly fishing, wait for the bites and then enjoy the hunt?

Jobar · 05-13-2006, 06:27 PM

Be careful what you wish for, Classical; you might get it. You don't remember theophilus, who used to post here in GRD, and in EoG constantly, until he got banned. He was a presuppositionalist, and seemed totally immune to facts, logic, and reason. And he would not shut up.

Even before I joined, theophilus was a monumental pain in the ass; sentinel00 earned my everlasting admiration with this post, which would be instantly shitcanned on II today. But that one short post described theo to a t.

There's been several others of that sort on II, and I think there's still one who posts regularly- but since he ain't been banned I can't name him. But if you're really curious, I can PM it to you! :devil3:

Howard · 05-14-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Be careful what you wish for, Classical; you might get it. You don't remember theophilus, who used to post here in GRD, and in EoG constantly, until he got banned. He was a presuppositionalist, and seemed totally immune to facts, logic, and reason. And he would not shut up.

Yeah, but I kind of miss him. He always evoked some spirited discussions - same for theists like Metacrock, Nomad and a few others. IMO, the present crop of theists just isn’t very interesting, particularly the Muslims, most of whom seem to think that unsupported assertions and Koranic quotations are valid arguments.

Jobar · 05-14-2006, 07:16 AM

Howard, do you think that has anything to do with the fact that we no longer allow them a place to freely call down fire & brimstone upon us? It always seemed to me that the true-quill frothing-at-the-mouth crazies flocked to RR&P, and that the ones like theo and Meatcock were the 'picks' of that nasty litter.

(Heh. Try to take away my soapbox, will they?)

Ubercat · 05-14-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Howard, do you think that has anything to do with the fact that we no longer allow them a place to freely call down fire & brimstone upon us? It always seemed to me that the true-quill frothing-at-the-mouth crazies flocked to RR&P, and that the ones like theo and Meatcock were the 'picks' of that nasty litter.

(Heh. Try to take away my soapbox, will they?)

RR&P? Must have been before my time. What was it and how did it work? If it was a section where theists could preach, then was it also a place where non believers could call a spade a spade?

-Ubercat

Jobar · 05-14-2006, 06:41 PM

On the button, Ubercat. Here's a thread from early 2002, Regarding our ever-hopeful drive-by theists which discusses the whys and wherefores of the Rants, Raves and Preaching forum. My contribution to it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

This is the arena where we let the Christians test their faith. If they live up to their own beliefs, are meek and humble and turn the other cheek, if they are gentle as lambs and wise as foxes- well, surprise! the lions may lay down and converse with them. Oh, the lions will certainly disagree with them, but they will not be savaged.

Most of our volunteers do not live up to the standards they claim to espouse, and wind up as lion food.

I miss the hell out of RR&P, even though it was a bitch to moderate. The board has become much, much politer without it, but as Howard says, not as interesting. I've periodically mounted my soapbox and called for its reinstatement, many times- all to no avail. Here is a thread I started in the Conference Room (not long before its closure) on the subject- from one of my posts there:

Quote:

II has to walk a narrow path between tyrannically enforced saccharine sweetness and anarchistic snarling nastiness. Wander too far to either side, and either the conversations become completely insipid and most everyone loses interest, or flame wars become the order of the day and only those nasty personalities who enjoy such things over actual exchange of ideas benefit.

I've seen the argument made that open anger and harsh dismissal of another's ideas, no matter how bat-shit crazy those ideas seem to you, is always useless. But reading the exchanges in that SL thread gives us anecdotal evidence that this isn't so; sometimes it can be beneficial to your argument to tell your opponent that you think his ideas and beliefs are flat-out crazy, inhuman, nonsensical, blind- insert your own favorite negative descriptor here- can jolt the one with whom you're disagreeing into viewing their position in a different light. Not always, maybe not often- but sometimes it works.

Arguments are disagreements, and disagreements are inevitably going to be disagreeable, at least some of the time. If II tries to completely stifle the disagreeable aspects of the discussions central to our purpose, we put out our own fire.

I think we've strayed too far towards saccharine sweetness, myself- but I've no vote or say on the matter.

fromdownunder · 05-14-2006, 07:03 PM

Meta. still has his own forum but it is effectively moribund. I do actually miss Bede. He was interesting to talk to.

As someone who had been gone a number of years, I found on return, the "new" IIDB a bit of culture shock. The problem may be that our ability to tell a moron to go and get fucked these days has gone, and the encouragement they get from "polite" responses simply leads to more posts with less content.

I think our most recent *whatever he was*, Troy "savedbygod" showed that if you give somebody as loony as he was a bit of space, they will abuse it. And he did, far more the theophilus ever did. Incidentally, Troy's own BB is down to one member now - himself.

It is fine to heve decorum on the more scholarly fora, but somewhere with a bit of breathing room to rant would do wonders. And lead to fewer bans I suspect.

Norm

Gamera · 05-14-2006, 10:44 PM

The problem with fundamentalists is their fundamental lack of faith. They're always trying to prove the bible is historically, prove the existence of God, prove the resurrection. Of course all this goes exactly contrary to the notion of a religion based on faith and acceptance. It's as if they're saying, God didn't do a good job proving these things, so we'll take it from. Ironically, as a Christian, I find the religous right the least faithful people I know.

Helo · 05-14-2006, 11:50 PM

Personally, I think some people here behave the same way fundamentalists do.

05-12-2006, 05:42 PM	#1
Classical Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA Posts: 1,808	Another Fundie Bites the Dust? It almost seems heartless and cruel the way we gang up on a Fundie all excited about the latest archaeological hoax - how mercilessly we expose the error of their claims - how ruthlessly we call a spade a spade - how generous we are with our sarcasm. The last thread about the Wyatt chariot wheels just suddenly stopped after it started to get really fun. Any ideas on how we can drag these threads out a little longer? Classical (very full of the devil tonight) :devil3: (Oh, StaceyMelissa, where are you?)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2006, 02:57 AM	#2
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Use Macchivelian techniques? We start a rumour about something, like fly fishing, wait for the bites and then enjoy the hunt?

05-13-2006, 06:27 PM	#3
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Be careful what you wish for, Classical; you might get it. You don't remember theophilus, who used to post here in GRD, and in EoG constantly, until he got banned. He was a presuppositionalist, and seemed totally immune to facts, logic, and reason. And he would not shut up. Even before I joined, theophilus was a monumental pain in the ass; sentinel00 earned my everlasting admiration with this post, which would be instantly shitcanned on II today. But that one short post described theo to a t. There's been several others of that sort on II, and I think there's still one who posts regularly- but since he ain't been banned I can't name him. But if you're really curious, I can PM it to you! :devil3:

05-14-2006, 07:16 AM	#5
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Howard, do you think that has anything to do with the fact that we no longer allow them a place to freely call down fire & brimstone upon us? It always seemed to me that the true-quill frothing-at-the-mouth crazies flocked to RR&P, and that the ones like theo and Meatcock were the 'picks' of that nasty litter. (Heh. Try to take away my soapbox, will they?)

05-14-2006, 07:03 PM	#8
fromdownunder Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Lara, Victoria, Australia Posts: 2,780	Meta. still has his own forum but it is effectively moribund. I do actually miss Bede. He was interesting to talk to. As someone who had been gone a number of years, I found on return, the "new" IIDB a bit of culture shock. The problem may be that our ability to tell a moron to go and get fucked these days has gone, and the encouragement they get from "polite" responses simply leads to more posts with less content. I think our most recent whatever he was, Troy "savedbygod" showed that if you give somebody as loony as he was a bit of space, they will abuse it. And he did, far more the theophilus ever did. Incidentally, Troy's own BB is down to one member now - himself. It is fine to heve decorum on the more scholarly fora, but somewhere with a bit of breathing room to rant would do wonders. And lead to fewer bans I suspect. Norm

05-14-2006, 10:44 PM	#9
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	The problem with fundamentalists is their fundamental lack of faith. They're always trying to prove the bible is historically, prove the existence of God, prove the resurrection. Of course all this goes exactly contrary to the notion of a religion based on faith and acceptance. It's as if they're saying, God didn't do a good job proving these things, so we'll take it from. Ironically, as a Christian, I find the religous right the least faithful people I know.

05-14-2006, 11:50 PM	#10
Helo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: in sin with a safety pin Posts: 1,151	Personally, I think some people here behave the same way fundamentalists do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.