Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Buffman · 12-31-2002, 10:49 PM

Here is a list of all the positive things we have learned about Radorth this last year:.....

Radorth · 01-01-2003, 08:56 AM

Since I've heard so little positive said here about Chistians who dare to disagree with secular activists, I won't lose much sleep.

One would think contrary opinions would get more kudos here, and intolerance fewer. But there's always next year.

Rad

Buffman · 01-01-2003, 01:20 PM

Rad

Since I've heard so little positive said here about Chistians who dare to disagree with secular activists, I won't lose much sleep.

Dare to disagree? You are a wonderful jokester! Apparently you must be wearing blinders or simply are unable to accept the fact that some people have had very "negative" experiences with SOME Christians and come here to express those experiences and feelings without fear of being considered as some sort of un-American( or inhuman), un-Patriotic member of their cultural society.

What still puzzles me is why you would expect to hear non-theists extolling the virtues of Christianity in secular forums? For that matter, extolling the positive aspects of any supernatural religious belief when weighed against the negative aspects of superstition, fear of the unknown, lack of acceptance of natural world "verifiable" evidence, and mythical legends worshipped as sacred dogma.

Perhaps you should spend some time at those Christian forums that consider non-believers akin to Satan/evil. I have yet to hear anything positive said at them about non-believers....and there are far more believers than non-believers. So when an admitted Christian joins these forums, one hopes that they come here not to speak only of the positive deeds of their particular religious faith belief, but to carry on a mutually beneficial dialogue of evidenciary fact and knowledge. I personally expect them to answer the sincere questions put to them in the most honest and direct manner of which they are capable. Unfortunately, that has never seemed to be your purpose here.

One would think contrary opinions would get more kudos here, and intolerance fewer. But there's always next year.

I welcome contrary opinions because I welcome the opportunity to learn new things from exposing, or confirmimg, the accuracy of that opinion...where ever possible. However, I will offer no "kudos" to those who are unwilling, or incapable, of providing usable references or of availing themselves of the information I may provide that may run counter to their beliefs. That becomes especially salient when that same person accuses me, and everyone else, of being less than forthright. That is particularly disengenuous when that same person manufactures many of these accusations from his/her own biased/conditioned viewpoint.

I do agree with you that all humans are conditioned and have biases. I would not agree with any contention that all humans are unaware of this. Many may not be, but some are. That is one reason why I have accused you of being a Christian apologist troll. I have intentionally asked you a series of questions concerning the foundations of your faith beliefs which you have obviously intentionally ignored rather than attempt a meaningful response. Instead, you look for some means to march off in a different direction while claiming that it is the questioner who is at fault. That is a propaganda technique aimed at influencing an audience to question the questioner rather than the individual questioned.

As you suggest, perhaps the new year will bring more enlightenment to all of us. I wish you a happy and healthy new year regardless of what religious or non-religious faith you practice. If you wish to believe that you were born in sin, that is certainly your choice. It is not mine. If you wish to believe that it is you against the atheists, that is your choice as well. I do not consider myself as being against Christians. I am against beliefs in the supernatural that result in intolerance and hate for our fellow beings.

Radorth · 01-01-2003, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Perhaps you should spend some time at those Christian forums that consider non-believers akin to Satan/evil. I have yet to hear anything positive said at them about non-believers....and there are far more believers than non-believers.

I guess you never went to a Cygnus forum, where the Christian moderators got all over the Christians for the smallest offense while we were called things that would embarrass M & M. But I'm not here to compare holiness between Christians and atheists. I think that is amixed bag as well. Of course I don't believe people are saved by their good works, and don't worry about Christians, except the legalists.

I pointed out some simple facts about your misrepresentations and that of those who ever hold me to the fire. I don't do that with anyone but those who demand what they don't do themselves, and who denigrate others personally and selectively. I think the fact that so many here deny using ad hom arguments speaks loudly about their own lack of awareness. My mistake is expecting the spiritually disabled to do better I suppose.

But I'm not here to judge by my rules. It is bad enough to be judged by your own rules. You will find that fair enough in the end I hope.

I have learned to keep the rules as loose as I reasonably can. I know they aren't up to your standards, but then I don't have to live by yours then either, do I? We could have saved tons of time if we simply had used my method of weeding out bad quotes, but that is water under the bridge now.

Sure Buffman, we could all do a better job of providing sources except you I suppose. But "little boys with big egos" is still the best explanation for this waste I think.

Rad

Buffman · 01-01-2003, 06:01 PM

Rad

But I'm not here to compare holiness between Christians and atheists. I think that is amixed bag as well.

Agreed!

Of course I don't believe people are saved by their good works, and don't worry about Christians, except the legalists.

As you might guess, I don't believe that people are "saved" whether by works or faith.

I pointed out some simple facts about your misrepresentations and that of those who ever hold me to the fire.

I do not view my statements through your filter. Therefore I humbly must disagree with your evaluation of my remarks...and many of those of others.

I think the fact that so many here deny using ad hom arguments speaks loudly about their own lack of awareness. My mistake is expecting the spiritually disabled to do better I suppose.

And exactly what would you call that remark?

But I'm not here to judge by my rules. It is bad enough to be judged by your own rules. You will find that fair enough in the end I hope.

Hmmmmm? Then whose rules do you use in order to make your judgments? I accept personal responsibility for my words and deeds...or lack thereof.

I have learned to keep the rules as loose as I reasonably can. I know they aren't up to your standards, but then I don't have to live by yours then either, do I?

Of course not! However, we must both live by the rules established for these forums...or in any forums in which we merely participate at the sufferance of the owners. ---You are correct about my unfamiliarity with the Cygnus forum. Only on rare occasions , when there is an available hyperlink, will I read some of the posts at a religious forum.

We could have saved tons of time if we simply had used my method of weeding out bad quotes, but that is water under the bridge now.

And exactly what "method" is that, pray tell? I have been doing exactly that for the last 22 years since retiring from active duty.

Sure Buffman, we could all do a better job of providing sources except you I suppose. But "little boys with big egos" is still the best explanation for this waste I think.

You just couldn't resist, could you? Had to get another cheap shot in. However, you are quite correct about one thing. My ego is nicely intact after dealing with people of your caliber. Thank you!

The Naked Mage · 01-02-2003, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

...while we were called things that would embarrass M & M.

Is there anything I could say here that would NOT be construed as a cheap shot?

Sabine Grant · 01-02-2003, 04:03 AM

Good morning everyone..... It appears to the outside observer I am of the debate engaged between Rad and Buffman that you may have both some common goals.....any possible efforts from the both of you to refocus on what could be similar concerns for the both of you? sort of like a " let us see where we can agree".

It should be the next step if the intent on both sides is to make this whole ordeal constructive.

NFLP · 01-02-2003, 07:04 AM

In this thread I have yet to see evidence of any wisdom which can be acquired through a Christ-like humility.

ybnormal · 01-02-2003, 08:10 AM

Sabine... you just won't get it... your using the word "debate" for Rad's childish bait & switch exhibitions exposes a bias larger than your ?God's creation.

Unless he or another can LINK me to something concrete, I suggest that Rad's absolutely, single, solitary factual "win" in this entire C-SS forum is the fact that Washington signed his name to another person's words, and even that, Rad twists into using the term "Washington mentioned" the word "Christ", which is not the truth, and he full well knows that.

IF there is any other "Rad win" that I don't know of, the fault there lies only with Radorth himself, whose only talent seems to be muddying such truths from the get go, and if another of his possible "wins" got lost in the shuffle, it was Rad's personal shuffle from the get go.

I said long ago that ALL Rad ever wanted or expected here was a "perceived draw" and he has thus manipulated your perception by smearing mud all over each and every issue and each and every person here who is devoted to finding facts, Sir Buffman being only the most obvious.

Radorth · 01-02-2003, 10:00 AM

Some reader may have noticed I tried three times to get the "New Take on Separation" back on track. I responded at length to Kirkhart's assertions, with facts people chose not to deny with other facts. Too bad. It might have been interesting.

I do hope however that we can agree that a fairly strict separation is a good thing. Some readers may have also noticed I have no great problem with any Supreme Court decision, some of which would have made Jefferson cringe.

eg, I'm for the Boy Scouts getting no help from the govt, and would support a lawsuit where they are getting any substantial favors. I don't think firemen or soldiers should be made to attend church. Jesus himself never wanted that as far as I'm concerned. Almost any decision which limits the power of cops is OK with me. We may have different reasons for wanting separation, but as long as no law inhibits the spread of the Gospel in any way, I will be happy. I fully admit I find the Secweb stimulating, and a good place to advertise certain facts and to right what I think are wrongs done to historical truth. So what? Why is that such a big deal? Why isn't it encouraged instead of condemned? It's a mystery to me.

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. It's become rather obvious what's happening here. We now have a license on a higher forum to do what should be kept in "Elsewhere" and then we have Toto watching the henhouse, and joining in. So there is a price to pay, and I fear it will be the Secweb.

I personally think that if the rules were that you could only respond to an incorrect statement with a correct one, and let the readers decide, we would do just fine. It's already been pointed out that certain moderators excercise much tighter control, and I for one would be very happy to live under their rules I'm sure. I've even considered sticking with certain moderators. . I think we can also agree that we could all do a better job of backing up our statements, but when the moderators can't even do it, what is going to happen to the thread?

Ideally I would give a quote, and Buffman, et al, would give the context for the sake of what he thinks is "the truth" and leave it at that. Or I would make a statement and someone would say. "That is simply wrong. The truth is...."

What's wrong with that? Something tells me hell will freeze over before that happens, but I hope not.

Rad

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

12-31-2002, 10:49 PM	#91
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Here is a list of all the positive things we have learned about Radorth this last year:.....

01-01-2003, 08:56 AM	#92
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Since I've heard so little positive said here about Chistians who dare to disagree with secular activists, I won't lose much sleep. One would think contrary opinions would get more kudos here, and intolerance fewer. But there's always next year. Rad

01-01-2003, 01:20 PM	#93
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Rad Since I've heard so little positive said here about Chistians who dare to disagree with secular activists, I won't lose much sleep. Dare to disagree? You are a wonderful jokester! Apparently you must be wearing blinders or simply are unable to accept the fact that some people have had very "negative" experiences with SOME Christians and come here to express those experiences and feelings without fear of being considered as some sort of un-American( or inhuman), un-Patriotic member of their cultural society. What still puzzles me is why you would expect to hear non-theists extolling the virtues of Christianity in secular forums? For that matter, extolling the positive aspects of any supernatural religious belief when weighed against the negative aspects of superstition, fear of the unknown, lack of acceptance of natural world "verifiable" evidence, and mythical legends worshipped as sacred dogma. Perhaps you should spend some time at those Christian forums that consider non-believers akin to Satan/evil. I have yet to hear anything positive said at them about non-believers....and there are far more believers than non-believers. So when an admitted Christian joins these forums, one hopes that they come here not to speak only of the positive deeds of their particular religious faith belief, but to carry on a mutually beneficial dialogue of evidenciary fact and knowledge. I personally expect them to answer the sincere questions put to them in the most honest and direct manner of which they are capable. Unfortunately, that has never seemed to be your purpose here. One would think contrary opinions would get more kudos here, and intolerance fewer. But there's always next year. I welcome contrary opinions because I welcome the opportunity to learn new things from exposing, or confirmimg, the accuracy of that opinion...where ever possible. However, I will offer no "kudos" to those who are unwilling, or incapable, of providing usable references or of availing themselves of the information I may provide that may run counter to their beliefs. That becomes especially salient when that same person accuses me, and everyone else, of being less than forthright. That is particularly disengenuous when that same person manufactures many of these accusations from his/her own biased/conditioned viewpoint. I do agree with you that all humans are conditioned and have biases. I would not agree with any contention that all humans are unaware of this. Many may not be, but some are. That is one reason why I have accused you of being a Christian apologist troll. I have intentionally asked you a series of questions concerning the foundations of your faith beliefs which you have obviously intentionally ignored rather than attempt a meaningful response. Instead, you look for some means to march off in a different direction while claiming that it is the questioner who is at fault. That is a propaganda technique aimed at influencing an audience to question the questioner rather than the individual questioned. As you suggest, perhaps the new year will bring more enlightenment to all of us. I wish you a happy and healthy new year regardless of what religious or non-religious faith you practice. If you wish to believe that you were born in sin, that is certainly your choice. It is not mine. If you wish to believe that it is you against the atheists, that is your choice as well. I do not consider myself as being against Christians. I am against beliefs in the supernatural that result in intolerance and hate for our fellow beings.

01-01-2003, 06:01 PM	#95
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Rad But I'm not here to compare holiness between Christians and atheists. I think that is amixed bag as well. Agreed! Of course I don't believe people are saved by their good works, and don't worry about Christians, except the legalists. As you might guess, I don't believe that people are "saved" whether by works or faith. I pointed out some simple facts about your misrepresentations and that of those who ever hold me to the fire. I do not view my statements through your filter. Therefore I humbly must disagree with your evaluation of my remarks...and many of those of others. I think the fact that so many here deny using ad hom arguments speaks loudly about their own lack of awareness. My mistake is expecting the spiritually disabled to do better I suppose. And exactly what would you call that remark? But I'm not here to judge by my rules. It is bad enough to be judged by your own rules. You will find that fair enough in the end I hope. Hmmmmm? Then whose rules do you use in order to make your judgments? I accept personal responsibility for my words and deeds...or lack thereof. I have learned to keep the rules as loose as I reasonably can. I know they aren't up to your standards, but then I don't have to live by yours then either, do I? Of course not! However, we must both live by the rules established for these forums...or in any forums in which we merely participate at the sufferance of the owners. ---You are correct about my unfamiliarity with the Cygnus forum. Only on rare occasions , when there is an available hyperlink, will I read some of the posts at a religious forum. We could have saved tons of time if we simply had used my method of weeding out bad quotes, but that is water under the bridge now. And exactly what "method" is that, pray tell? I have been doing exactly that for the last 22 years since retiring from active duty. Sure Buffman, we could all do a better job of providing sources except you I suppose. But "little boys with big egos" is still the best explanation for this waste I think. You just couldn't resist, could you? Had to get another cheap shot in. However, you are quite correct about one thing. My ego is nicely intact after dealing with people of your caliber. Thank you!

01-02-2003, 04:03 AM	#97
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Good morning everyone..... It appears to the outside observer I am of the debate engaged between Rad and Buffman that you may have both some common goals.....any possible efforts from the both of you to refocus on what could be similar concerns for the both of you? sort of like a " let us see where we can agree". It should be the next step if the intent on both sides is to make this whole ordeal constructive.

01-02-2003, 07:04 AM	#98
NFLP Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Southeast Posts: 150	In this thread I have yet to see evidence of any wisdom which can be acquired through a Christ-like humility.

01-02-2003, 08:10 AM	#99
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	Sabine... you just won't get it... your using the word "debate" for Rad's childish bait & switch exhibitions exposes a bias larger than your ?God's creation. Unless he or another can LINK me to something concrete, I suggest that Rad's absolutely, single, solitary factual "win" in this entire C-SS forum is the fact that Washington signed his name to another person's words, and even that, Rad twists into using the term "Washington mentioned" the word "Christ", which is not the truth, and he full well knows that. IF there is any other "Rad win" that I don't know of, the fault there lies only with Radorth himself, whose only talent seems to be muddying such truths from the get go, and if another of his possible "wins" got lost in the shuffle, it was Rad's personal shuffle from the get go. I said long ago that ALL Rad ever wanted or expected here was a "perceived draw" and he has thus manipulated your perception by smearing mud all over each and every issue and each and every person here who is devoted to finding facts, Sir Buffman being only the most obvious.

01-02-2003, 10:00 AM	#100
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Some reader may have noticed I tried three times to get the "New Take on Separation" back on track. I responded at length to Kirkhart's assertions, with facts people chose not to deny with other facts. Too bad. It might have been interesting. I do hope however that we can agree that a fairly strict separation is a good thing. Some readers may have also noticed I have no great problem with any Supreme Court decision, some of which would have made Jefferson cringe. eg, I'm for the Boy Scouts getting no help from the govt, and would support a lawsuit where they are getting any substantial favors. I don't think firemen or soldiers should be made to attend church. Jesus himself never wanted that as far as I'm concerned. Almost any decision which limits the power of cops is OK with me. We may have different reasons for wanting separation, but as long as no law inhibits the spread of the Gospel in any way, I will be happy. I fully admit I find the Secweb stimulating, and a good place to advertise certain facts and to right what I think are wrongs done to historical truth. So what? Why is that such a big deal? Why isn't it encouraged instead of condemned? It's a mystery to me. 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. It's become rather obvious what's happening here. We now have a license on a higher forum to do what should be kept in "Elsewhere" and then we have Toto watching the henhouse, and joining in. So there is a price to pay, and I fear it will be the Secweb. I personally think that if the rules were that you could only respond to an incorrect statement with a correct one, and let the readers decide, we would do just fine. It's already been pointed out that certain moderators excercise much tighter control, and I for one would be very happy to live under their rules I'm sure. I've even considered sticking with certain moderators. . I think we can also agree that we could all do a better job of backing up our statements, but when the moderators can't even do it, what is going to happen to the thread? Ideally I would give a quote, and Buffman, et al, would give the context for the sake of what he thinks is "the truth" and leave it at that. Or I would make a statement and someone would say. "That is simply wrong. The truth is...." What's wrong with that? Something tells me hell will freeze over before that happens, but I hope not. Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.