ybnormal

I've said these things many times, but certain Rad chasers here have been called to account for the very practices they condemn, so all they can talk about is my faults.

Not as many times I think, as Buffman has had to tell you something everyone here KNOWS, and that is that he is ONLY interested in the absolute FACTS, and he doesn't care one damn bit who those FACTS help or hurt, and if it were not for you Rad, having some personal vendetta to "bring him down" to your level, Buffman would never have to waste his valuable time repeatedly telling you the most obvious FACT known to everyone here, including yourself... but since YOU have an obvious agenda and Buffman obviously does not, we all keep going around in circles, which I dare say, is clearly the way Rad wants it.

And since we're all into disclaimers these days, I STILL have nothing personal against you and I ain't angry. I am only frustrated with your evasive tactics, which I also dare say, is clearly the way Rad wants it. If this were not so, you would not have missed a golden opportunity immediately after your "miraculous change in Rad" post, and with that in mind, as far as I'm concerned, everyone who has been trying to reach you, now has the highest of high moral ground, and your pleas for pity in this den of evil Atheists are falling on deaf ears.

Toto

Rad:

All of a sudden you are trying to take the high road, but it will only succeed with people who haven't read any of your earlier posts. Your earlier stance was that we are all lying hypocrites, and when we just admit this and accept Jesus we'll be fine (without having to stop lying or hypocrisy, evidently.) But you have been confronted with people who actually do care about historical truth, have been willing to admit error, and care about reasonable arguments, so suddenly you think it is appalling that this thread has become so emotional. The emotions are ones that you have deliberately provoked with your own bad behavior.

You have not corrected our errors with truth. You have repeated false statements from David Barton.

You did not reply to the Kirkhard article with "facts". You copied chunks of her article without proper formatting, forcing me to heavily edit your posts, and made some flippant counter-assertions, which leads me to think that you did not get her point.

You did not post a URL for your claims until I hounded you; and when you did, it appears obvious that you didn't understand what you read and don't take care to understand the details.

You proposed:

What do you mean "we", paleface?

Here's what's wrong with your rule: You get to spew any kind of nonsense, and you force people with more care for the truth to do the research to correct your errors. Everyone else has to do your work for you. And you don't give your opponents a chance to comment on your debating tactics, which I consider a legitimate topic for discussion.

I want to propose this rule:

Assertions of historical fact by Radorth that do not contain actual quotes inside quotation marks and at least one URL or specific citation to a readily available reference will be deleted on sight.

This rule will also be applied to other admitted trolls with a history of posting bad information.

Otherwise you are just abusing us.

Comments?

beejay

That sounds good to me.

When I see the work that Buffman and others go to to try to correct Radorth and see Radorth just skate away saying he can't be bothered to provide references...

So I'll vote for any rule that tries to return some semblence of fair discussion to the debates...

Radcliffe Emerson

Most Christians don't even understand Jesus' teachings.
How many of them know that the teachings about "turn the other cheek", "if asked to carry something a mile, carry it for two", "if someone asks for your shirt, give them your cloak as well", are INSULTS to Romans, not Jesus telling people to be nice?

Jesus said "When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other." Striking someone on a right cheek either meant you were being backhanded, or hit with someone's left hand, both of which were ways Romans insulted Jews. Jesus told his followers to throw the insult right back by offering the other cheek.
A Roman was allowed to inscript a Jew to carry his pack for one mile, but he could not make the person carry it for two miles. By offering to carry it an extra mile, the Roman soldier was humiliated.
If a fellow Jew sued someone for their shirt because they couldn't pay a debt, offering their cloak was an insult, because the accused would then be naked and that was offensive to Jews.
These teachings are not "be nice, meek and mild teachings", they are meant to start trouble.
Jesus said you must hate your parents to follow him, all unbelievers would be burned in fire (regardless of the type of person they were). Notice it doesn't say Christian ministers who abuse kids will be burned in fire, but just unbelievers.
He treated his own mother with disrespect, calling her "woman", which is offensive in that culture to call your own mother.
Jesus was not even a nice person, let alone someone worth worshipping.

Buffman

Toto

Though Rad and I have confronted each other over a number of issues, many of which diverging from the specific topic thread, I am not sure that it is in everyone's best interest to institute the procedure you have recommended...much as it would certainly suit my efforts to present only the most accurate historical, verifiable, evidence that I can locate.

I have found Rad's posts to be extremely informative...though not about verifiable, accurate, history. Instead, he continuously demonstrates the true nature of the of the problems faced by those who are attempting to counter the very professional propaganda techniques employed by this latest wave of Christian apologists. I have found it very valuable to have had the oppprtunity to help "publically" expose him for what he really is and to better learn how best to counter his techniques and brand of "stealth" bearing false witness.

What he is, unintentionally, doing is helping to teach all of those, who take the time to carefully read each of his posts, exactly how truly disengenuous and shallow his positions are...and how best to identify and counter them with calm, critically analyzed, factually accurate, information or timely and appropriate challenges. (Each of your challenges/recommendations/comments have been timely, appropriate and on the mark.)

So this recommendation pulls me in two diametrically opposed directions. In one direction, I detest wasting my limited and valuable time constantly repeating the information that I post simply in response to his continuous negative assertions concerning the validity or value of that information. In the other direction, I am loathe to support an action that could deny everyone the opportunity to appreciate, understand and expose the techniques and conditioned thinking that we find at/in so many of the radical, Christian right, Web sites/newspaper letters/TV broadcasts/political speeches/preachings.

I find myself carefully reading the words of ybnormal. He comments, with more than a simple passing observation, on what one of Rad's goals really is...to come off as an equally fair and honest researcher for accurate history. If he can't prevail in a disputed issue, then he will be perfectly happy with a draw...allowing the issue to remain in doubt in the minds of the readership. That is one of the propaganda techniques with which he is most adept. When he posts something that is exposed as being in error or incomplete, he does not respond, but rather, obfuscates the issue by introducing something that diverts attention away from his original post. (That is just one reason for his intentional lack of posted hyperlinks.) However, when he accurately provided a reference I used to support one of his statements, he has continued to trumpet that single revelation as though it were the Holy Grail of Christiandom. (I worried that he might injure his arm from patting himself on the back so much.)

Though Rad alleges that he doesn't have time, or even the desire, to read all the links provided by others, he often uses the information found at those very hyperlinked sites to advance his own position when he finds something that he believes will neutalize other less supportive information found there. Naturally he doesn't have the time or desire to read anything which does not promote his subjective agenda. Why should he? Simple! Because it is the fair, objective and honest thing to do if a researcher is to maintain any level of credibility. (Personally I suspect that is why he needs to find whatever he can to discredit my posts...or anyone else's that run counter to his own. When he can't find any, he manufactures self-serving comments. He isn't concerned with fairness, objectivity or honesty according to any of the definitions I have found for those words. He appears only concerned with doing whatever he can to advance his own worldviews. I do not fault or condemn him for attempting to do so. However, I will do whatever I am able to do to expose the errors in his posts allowing others to decide for themselves what is or is not accurate.

So those are several of the reasons that I am currently unwilling to take a position on your recommendation. I will not allow people like Rad to frustrate my personal quest for accurate enlightenment. Instead, I welcome the opportunity to gain insights into their propaganda techniques in order to identify and counter them in the future. I will resist the urge to attempt to silence them simply because they believe in the supernatural and the righteousness of their crusade. It matters not one whit to me whose information/evidence/facts prove to be the most accurate...those of the Christian or those of the Atheist...or the Druid.

"What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" (I just wish that Robert Heinlein had added the word "verifiable" in front of "facts.")

Toto

A fascinating (if off-topic) post, and I invite you to start a thread in Gen Religious or BC&A to discuss it further.

Radcliffe Emerson

Yeah, I got carried away then realized it was not the right room for that.
sorry....

ybnormal

Yeah, I got carried away then realized it was not the right room for that.
sorry....

Then again, let's look at the good side... it was a mini-lesson that should help us all understand exactly how convoluted our lives have become here... I just assumed you were properly responding to someone's post, while I became quite fascinated with a totally new concept. Thanks!

Sabine Grant

Radcliff Emerson hello! it also appears that some of us had agreed about leaving attacks against christians out of this thread.

Sabine Grant

Hello Ybnormal....it appears that the arguments developed here between Buffman and Rad could become constructive. Of course it implies that two people have to make the effort to refocus. I am not sure what you pertain to exhibit here.... you take one word out of my encouragement and twist the entire attempt into some bias agenda. I am sorry that you cannot understand the value behind my comment.
Here is a potentialy constructive new start : one can be a christian and support the Separation of Church and State and aknowledge that the thinkers behind the US Constitution intended to prevent religious dogma from interfering with government affairs. One can be a non theist and aknowledge that some of the thinkers behind the US Constitution could have been christians who insured that religious dogma would never interfer with government affairs. In other words, one needs not to claim that any of those noble characters were or were not christians to aknowledge that the intent was to prevent religious dogma to overtake the government. There are christians who support the Separation of Church and State. Americans United defends that principle. Led by an ordained minister.
So where is the commoness between two men who apparantly both believe in preventing religious dogma from interfering with government affairs? I assume that Rad listed honestly in a previous post what he believes. If he did not, then I encourage him to modify his statements.

Again it appears to me that they both support the Separation of Church and State.

{edited by Toto fix tags}