On Hal Bidlack's Comment

[Christian]

I want to give my phylosophical opinion on Mr. Bidlack's comment (I have never exchanged any words with him so I am hesitant to call him Hal).

I think central to a human being well being is limits and authority.

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

That choice has a price, as we can clearly see from Mr. Bidlack's comments.

[Virgil]

well if we get shutdown while I'm at work...I'll miss you all.


meeow and purrr
Virgil the Tiger

[Upchurch]

Actually, in the back of my head, I've been thinking about bringing this up as a philosophical (maybe political) topic for a while now.

What we have here is an atempt to balance two ideological forces. On the one hand, like Christian points out is the need for personal freedom. On the other, is the need for order and law. Neither one can be allowed to completely dominate because they have unacceptable consequences.

At one point on this forum, we had what I would considered almost entirely unrestricted freedom to write, say, and do what ever we wanted. The result was that the JREF website was banned from some school libraries. Alternatively, if absolute law and order were imposed by the moderators we would have something along the lines of believer boards where only the "company line" can be freely expressed. Either way, the goals of the JREF are hindered rather than helped.

So, the key is to find balance. Doable in princible, but in practice has been difficult. Everytime someone the line and tries to gain more personal freedom on the board, the pendelum swings the other way and the mods impose more restrictions in order to compinsate for the imbalance. This, in turn, causes various posters to push the limits even harder, starting the cycle over again.

Essentially, we're going through the growing pains of creating a society. Either it will become stable and we will survive or it will become unstable and fall apart. Sort of social evolution in action.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Which is why the mods should establish clear rules about what is and is not permitted, and then enforce them.

If the rules were written correctly (that is, adequately reflecting the desired standards of the moderators and administrators) there would be no need to constantly write new rules.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Christian
...
Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.

... I suspect that you picked up this notion from some anti-atheist rant from the pulpit at your church, rather than from anyone around here.

What I value is this: rationality.

I consider it irrational to believe that limits and authority are provided from an imaginary being in the sky, as articulated in ancient books of suspect provenence, and not out of the mere necessity of organized, civilized society.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Which is why the mods should establish clear rules about what is and is not permitted, and then enforce them.

If the rules were written correctly (that is, adequately reflecting the desired standards of the moderators and administrators) there would be no need to constantly write new rules. All of which is just as important for the posters to follow the rules and not to expect the mods to "get back" at other posters in the forum that they don't like or agree with.

[Christian]

Originally posted by hgc
I suspect that you picked up this notion from some anti-atheist rant from the pulpit at your church, rather than from anyone around here.

What I value is this: rationality.

I consider it irrational to believe that limits and authority are provided from an imaginary being in the sky, as articulated in ancient books of suspect provenence, and not out of the mere necessity of organized, civilized society.

You suspect wrong. I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Christian
Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.



We have discussed this before..

If this were true, then there should be a lot more professed Atheists in jails and prisons that there are Christians..

Guess what? It ain't so...

[Dymanic]

I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.
Originally posted by Christian

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom.
I would echo what hgc said.I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.You are projecting your own values on to others.

Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with limits or authority, one way or the other. If it can be demonstrated that an authority actually exists, an atheist would be no more (or less) likely to defy (or obey) it than anyone else.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
All of which is just as important for the posters to follow the rules and not to expect the mods to "get back" at other posters in the forum that they don't like or agree with. Since the rules require moderator interpretation, there's no way the posters can determine whether any behavior is against the rules or not. They see harmless posts censored or removed for trivial reasons, and posts that are grossly detrimental to reasoned debate be passed over because they "didn't violate forum rules".

Bull. You people don't care about whether posts forward the JREF mission or not. You're just concerned about whether certain actions make you look bad or mean.

This isn't rules enforcement, it's a public relations game.

[Samus]

Christian: Throughout my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority. What has most value for them is personal freedom. I would phrase this a different way. I would say that there are many people on the forum that value personal freedom, and some (most?) of them just happened to be atheists as well.

Atheism does not imply a lack of respect for authority. However, a strong desire for personal freedom often begets a distaste for undue restrictions, and in the case of the forums, seemingly arbitrary implementation of rules.

I say seemingly, because if a user does not have the same general feelings of what "fair" is (as compared to a moderator), then they will perceive moderator decisions as inconsistent.

[uruk]

The problem with writting down rules is that they get interpreted in many different ways. You can try to get specific, but then get several volumes of complex rules and your bound to miss some obscure permutation. And things such as decency and relevancy is by necessity an objective call and subject to debate.

What the FCC finds unacceptable changes day to day. One day you can say @$$ on a show, then it gets bleeped during a rerun.
Whats the criteria?

This is the age old struggle between free speech and saying something simply because you can, even if its irresponsible or offensive to the unwashed masses. It is a necesisary evil if you want to have a "free" society. I say we need to develope a thicker skin and deal with the what we find offensive on an individual basis.

Though I find the pictures of the misstreated Iraqi prisoners embarrasing and offensive, I think people have a right to post them even if it is irresponsible and immaturely done. I, after all, don't have to see them if I don't want too. But the problem here is that JREF wants school children to have access to this forum.
Now you wouldn't want to post a picture of a person pointing to a bound person's genitals on the disney or sesame street web site would you? So what the solution? Take some personal responsibility in your posts. Or should JREF open an adult forum?

This is a private forum. And remember the golden rule folks: Those with the gold makes the rules!

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


We have discussed this before..

If this were true, then there should be a lot more professed Atheists in jails and prisons that there are Christians..

Guess what? It ain't so...

Proportionately?

[scribble]

I read Hal's comment like this:

"We let people do whatever they want, and they did, and we don't like the result, so we're going to can the whole experiment."

Hal's got every right to be pessimistic. The JREF's got every right to shitcan the Forums. And I've got every right to say, "I told you so."

This place has always been a private club. If you want that private club atmosphere to remain, you've got to run it like a private club. The failure here is on the part of the management. I don't mean Hal - I mean whoever it is that makes the broad, sweeping plans for this forum.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by frisian


Proportionately?

Not based on Christian's assertion...

If belief in God/s gave one a source of authority, and that authority were followed, then it follows that very few of such people would run afoul of the law..


If they choose not to follow that authority, what makes them any different from an Atheist who has no such authority?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Bull. You people don't care about whether posts forward the JREF mission or not. You're just concerned about whether certain actions make you look bad or mean.

This isn't rules enforcement, it's a public relations game. Honestly, Wrath. If that were truly the case, why are all the threads and posts that criticize the mods still there? For that matter, why are many of the posters who criticize the mods still able to post? Do you honestly think we do this for some sort of egotistical boost?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Not based on Christian's assertion...

If belief in God/s gave one a source of authority, and that authority were followed, then it follows that very few of such people would run afoul of the law..


If they choose not to follow that authority, what makes them any different from an Atheist who has no such authority?

Ah, indeed Christian's assertion was too broad based. I understand your paradigm now.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Honestly, Wrath. If that were truly the case, why are all the threads and posts that criticize the mods still there? For that matter, why are many of the posters who criticize the mods still able to post? Do you honestly think we do this for some sort of egotistical boost? Not surprisingly, you've completely missed the point.

You don't care very much about people insulting you directly. What your behavior shows you're concerned about is the public perception of these forums - you'll go to great lengths to avoid banning trolls so that they won't go about badmouthing JREF. You don't want to be perceived as harsh or mean, so you'll tolerate utterly outrageous garbage from the posters who have the least to contribute, because those are the people most likely to tarnish your precious collective reputation. Conversely, you have no problems with enforcing ad hoc standards on the most reasonable and conscientious posters, precisely because they're not the type to go around spreading lies.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Conversely, you have no problems with enforcing ad hoc standards on the most reasonable and conscientious posters, precisely because they're not the type to go around spreading lies. Reasonable and conscienctious posters like Interesting Ian? :D

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, that would be one of idiots you conveniently never get around to dealing with. That tool should have been banned ten times over by now.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
That tool should have been banned ten times over by now. For what, exactly?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well I just don't know, Upchurch - how are you interepreting the rules today?

His constant irrational, incoherent rantings certainly didn't forward the goals of JREF - isn't that the "moderation motivation of the day" at present?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Well I just don't know, Upchurch - how are you interepreting the rules today?I'm asking you. What would you have banned him for ten times over by now? Yes, Ian rants from time to time, as do we all. Also, you are correct that Ian's point of view is not consistant with a skeptical world view. Are those the reasons you would have banned him ten times over by now?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well, let's see.

He constantly insults everyone who attempts to have a discussion with him.

He never acknowledges that his arguments are refuted, or that any arguments that contradict his own are even potentially valid.

He swears constantly, and is generally abusive without provocation or good cause.

In short, he's what is generally referred to as a 'troll', which was previously against the rules (until it was admitted that you jokers couldn't even establish a definition for trolling properly and removed the rule).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

He constantly insults everyone who attempts to have a discussion with him.As do you.
He never acknowledges that his arguments are refuted,Neither do you, at least in our discussions.
He swears constantly, and is generally abusive without provocation or good cause.For which he was suspended. You, yourself, are quite abusive at times.
In short, he's what is generally referred to as a 'troll', which was previously against the rules (until it was admitted that you jokers couldn't even establish a definition for trolling properly and removed the rule). Are you, then, also a troll?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.

~~ Paul

[Christian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Not based on Christian's assertion...

If belief in God/s gave one a source of authority, and that authority were followed, then it follows that very few of such people would run afoul of the law..


If they choose not to follow that authority, what makes them any different from an Atheist who has no such authority?


Think about what you are saying. If they really believed there was Someone watching (and not just anybody, but the main Man), would they run afoul of the law?

I submit to you, they do it because they believe there is no such authority.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
As do you. Nonsense. I rarely attack people; the vast majority of my posts are queries and general assertions.

Neither do you, at least in our discussions. I don't believe we've ever had a 'discussion'. Except, of course, about the forum rules, in which case your arguments never extend further than "those behaviors are not forbidden by the moderators' interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are not valid topics of debate".
You, yourself, are quite abusive at times. I don't tolerate fools... which is why I find the moderators' attempts to make excuses for and even encourage such people quite distressing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.I couldn't agree more.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Nonsense. I rarely attack people; the vast majority of my posts are queries and general assertions.

I don't believe we've ever had a 'discussion'. Except, of course, about the forum rules, in which case your arguments never extend further than "those behaviors are not forbidden by the moderators' interpretations of the rules, and those interpretations are not valid topics of debate".
I don't tolerate fools... which is why I find the moderators' attempts to make excuses for and even encourage such people quite distressing. Funny. Ian has said pretty much the same thing. I fail to see an appriciable differnece.


edited for stupid formating

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads. Nothing forces you to listen to the people who make claims of psychic phenomena or alien abductions or absurd physics, either.

Why does the JREF spend so much time and energy attempting to refute such people and their positions? They don't have to pay attention to them, after all.

Just what *is* the point of these forums?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Funny. Ian has said pretty much the same thing. I fail to see an appriciable differnece. Yes. We've discussed your inability to distinguish between valid and invalid claims before, Upchurch.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It is primarily due to Interesting Ian that I've learned a little philosophy over the past year or so. I thank him for that. Nothing forces me to read his threads.

~~ Paul

Agreed! :)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Yes. We've discussed your inability to distinguish between valid and invalid claims before, Upchurch. So, your claims are "valid" and those that you don't like are "invalid"? Gotcha.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Swarm said:
Nothing forces you to listen to the people who make claims of psychic phenomena or alien abductions or absurd physics, either.

Why does the JREF spend so much time and energy attempting to refute such people and their positions? They don't have to pay attention to them, after all.
I think the JREF spends some time on these matters on behalf of the people who do pay attention, in an effort to present the other side of the coin.

The reason I said that I'm not forced to read Ian's threads is to point out why he shouldn't be banned (at least as far as his ideas go). The claim that he wastes anyone's time is specious, because people can simply ignore his threads.

~~ Paul

[Christian]

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack

I, as a member of the JREF Board of Directors, now publically state that I feel the forum is a net loss for the JREF in terms of reputation and character.


I thought his words would be a clear evidence of my point.

Why is it that a place where athiests (by far more than any other place I've seen) hang out where the rules are very very light, at the end give this net loss in terms of reputation and character?

The contention has always been that atheists hold themselves (and have more merit therefore) to a higher ethical and moral standard.

This is evidence of the contrary. Here is where facts and actions clash head on with rhetoric.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, your claims are "valid" and those that you don't like are "invalid"? Gotcha. No - logic determines whether claims are valid or invalid. Claims that are inconsistent are invalid; the act of claiming without adequate support is also invalid.

It's really not that hard to distinguish the two. Perhaps you might consider learning how some day.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The reason I said that I'm not forced to read Ian's threads is to point out why he shouldn't be banned (at least as far as his ideas go). The claim that he wastes anyone's time is specious, because people can simply ignore his threads. And how do we determine whether a post is worth spending time on otherwise?

Yes, once it's clear that someone has no intention of debating honestly, we can ignore that person. But they'll keep spamming, and they'll be read by the lurkers.

If we want to establish reason and sanity so that people who lurk but don't post can be swayed by them, why should we permit irrational ranting?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No - logic determines whether claims are valid or invalid. Claims that are inconsistent are invalid; the act of claiming without adequate support is also invalid. Despite what you may feel for Ian and his views personally, most of his arguments were well thought out and from legitimate schools of philosophical thought. Some of them were not.

Your own ideas about the possibile formation of totally objective rules to govern human behavior, on the other hand, are inconsistant, as evidenced by the fact that no legal system in the world ever has been able to come with a set and often require interpreters (in the sake of the US, "judges"). Are they not, then, invalid?

So far, you've met your own criteria for being a troll in this one thread alone: abusive, insulting, unable to admit being incorrect, and invalid arguments. Do you consider yourself to be a troll? And if not, why not?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Despite what you may feel for Ian and his views personally, most of his arguments were well thought out and from legitimate schools of philosophical thought. Some of them were not.

Your own ideas about the possibile formation of totally objective rules to govern human behavior, on the other hand, are inconsistant, as evidenced by the fact that no legal system in the world ever has been able to come with a set and often require interpreters (in the sake of the US, "judges"). Are they not, then, invalid?

So far, you've met your own criteria for being a troll in this one thread alone: abusive, insulting, unable to admit being incorrect, and invalid arguments. Do you consider yourself to be a troll? And if not, why not?

Upchurch, you are correct, and he successfully derailed the thread and took you down with him.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Christian

he successfully derailed the thread and took you down with him. That he did. My appologies.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Despite what you may feel for Ian and his views personally, most of his arguments were well thought out and from legitimate schools of philosophical thought. Some of them were not. From what I could tell, most of his arguments were gross misunderstandings of schools of thought that have been generally discredited. Most of the rest relied heavily on idiosyncratic definitions that he refused to clarify.

Your own ideas about the possibile formation of totally objective rules to govern human behavior, on the other hand, are inconsistant, as evidenced by the fact that no legal system in the world ever has been able to come with a set and often require interpreters (in the sake of the US, "judges"). Are they not, then, invalid? Poor reasoning. Legal systems generally are invalid; that does not show that valid rule systems cannot be made. What makes you think I consider those legal systems as valid, thus leading to a contradiction?

Do you do any computer programming, Upchurch? I ask merely because people who do are aware that people must learn how to make their meaning clear and unambiguous. Computers do exactly what we tell them to do with essentially no errors - any errors are in our instructions.

So far, you've met your own criteria for being a troll in this one thread alone: abusive, insulting, unable to admit being incorrect, and invalid arguments. Do you consider yourself to be a troll? And if not, why not? No, I haven't met any of the standards. You presume to know what my positions are on certain matters, then point out contradictions between my stated positions and your assumptions and think you've demonstrated an error.

Being "abusive and insulting" is associated with trolling only when it's not deserved. When you make stupid arguments, and I point out your stupidity, there's no violation of intellectual standards involved.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That he did. My appologies.

You know I think you're the man. ;)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Christian
I think central to a human being well being is limits and authority. Among those atheists who rejected religious belief on logical grounds, there is an awareness that authorities are only authoratitive on certain subjects. No one can ever be an authority on truth or the nature of the world.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Christian
...
The contention has always been that atheists hold themselves (and have more merit therefore) to a higher ethical and moral standard.
... I've never contended that, and I'd like you to point to an "atheist" here who has. What you seem to have misinterpreted is the refrain from many atheists that those who believe morals are established and punishments meted out by a divinity are mistaken when they discount the need to live together in a civilized way as reason enough to behave morally and ethically. Simply put, you don't need God to be moral. That's not the same as holding yourself to a higher standard.Why is it that a place where athiests (by far more than any other place I've seen) hang out where the rules are very very light, at the end give this net loss in terms of reputation and character?
It's not because it's atheists, it's because it's a place where practically unedited content is continually added by people with too much time on their hands.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Among those atheists who rejected religious belief on logical grounds, there is an awareness that authorities are only authoratitive on certain subjects. No one can ever be an authority on truth or the nature of the world.


I agree.


By the way, I'm not using authority with knowledge as a cognotative, I'm using authority in the sense someone who is invested with power and control.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

All right; I accept your more specific definition.

I would agree that authority is important, but what matters is that the authority is transparent and consistent (that is, its workings are easy to perceive and its actions are easy to anticipate).

I do not see these traits being manifested by the current authorities in charge of these boards.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
All right; I accept your more specific definition.

I would agree that authority is important, but what matters is that the authority is transparent and consistent (that is, its workings are easy to perceive and its actions are easy to anticipate).

I do not see these traits being manifested by the current authorities in charge of these boards.

The thing is this. When authority is human, it won't always be perceived that way. No human is perfect, seldom are excellent. The norm is to have authority who is average in the qualities you mention.

If computers ran things, maybe it would be different, but humans is all we have.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But we don't even have that. We're in immediate danger of having rules like "don't be a jerk".

Well, what is a jerk? "Everyone knows what a jerk is, I don't have to explain it." And then the moderators begin applying their own interpretations of the word to the posts, and no one can tell what will or will not be considered acceptable.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
But we don't even have that. We're in immediate danger of having rules like "don't be a jerk".

Well, what is a jerk? "Everyone knows what a jerk is, I don't have to explain it." And then the moderators begin applying their own interpretations of the word to the posts, and no one can tell what will or will not be considered acceptable.

I can appreciate where you're coming from.

Can you buy this idea?

They are trying to use general guidelines that they believe most everyone will understand (like I can't explain what obcenity is but I know it when I see it)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Abomination!

That's not a standard. That's an attempt to leave loopholes in the rules so that the people who are supposed to enforce them can apply their personal standards instead.

If you can recogize that a stimulus falls into a category, then it is theoretically possible to specify the mechanism that allows you to do so and define it objectively. If you want to prohibit something, that's precisely what needs to be done. The mods just don't want to have to think about what shouldn't be permitted and how to define it.

Here's a thought: what if I were given absolute control over these forums? What if I assured everyone that I would act impartially and objectively; I wouldn't censor anything except examples of grishnalek, which were to be forbidden.

And then I refused to explain what grishnalek was, but said that I reserved the right to ban anyone who posted it.

What would you think about my moderation?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Abomination!

That's not a standard. That's an attempt to leave loopholes in the rules so that the people who are supposed to enforce them can apply their personal standards instead.

If you can recogize that a stimulus falls into a category, then it is theoretically possible to specify the mechanism that allows you to do so and define it objectively. If you want to prohibit something, that's precisely what needs to be done. The mods just don't want to have to think about what shouldn't be permitted and how to define it.

Here's a thought: what if I were given absolute control over these forums? What if I assured everyone that I would act impartially and objectively; I wouldn't censor anything except examples of grishnalek, which were to be forbidden.

And then I refused to explain what grishnalek was, but said that I reserved the right to ban anyone who posted it.

What would you think about my moderation?

Ok, but try to talk to me, let's try to have a conversation.

What if someone said, try to be nice and polite with my family. Would you understand what that meant? Of course you would.

That's all I'm saying about that.

Now, from the phylosophical standpoint, I believe atheist have an excellent opportunity to self-regulate.

I believe this is what was thought initially. Atheists will come here and will act accordingly with no need of rules. The outcome of that was to get banned from schools.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Christian
What if someone said, try to be nice and polite with my family. Would you understand what that meant? Of course you would. No, I would understand what *I* meant by that, and would try to act accordingly.

Now what if this person had a completely different set of standards in mind? Let's say that, during the dinner, I stated that I disagreed with a political opinion expressed by, say, the father. And let's further say that this person was absolutely incensed by what he considered my rudeness while I considered it a polite conversation.

Which of us is right?

[Loki]

Wrath,

Even if you're right, and you CAN create an fully working set of objective rules that govern any and all moderation issues, it doesn't escape from the fact that the forum has to interact with the real world. There are legal (as in USA - legal) standards that must be met, even if they are in violation of your theoretical objective standards. What would you suggest if your 'objective standard' made behaviour 'X' okay, but the law disagrees?

[Loki]

Christian,

Throught my time here, the common denominator of most atheists is a rebellion to limits and authority
...
I picked it up right here, from personal experience, at the JREF.
You found what you were looking for. My memory of your earliest days here is that you've had this "atheist/rebellion" theme right from the start. Remember your attempt to prove the bible was true using biblical prophecy and statistics? You stuck with that for a month or so until Stimpy handed you a lesson in statistics and you slunk away with a promise to 'get back to this once the details were worked out' (still waiting, by the way). You told me during that first debate that you KNEW atheists were simply in rebellion.

Of course, I also recall that you said at that time that you KNEW atheists were rebelling against what they knew to be the truth - that we know god exists, but we refuse to accept his dominion. It was clear to me that you (at that time) saw atheism as a refusal to face reality. You now deny this, and claim to have never said any such thing. Oh how I wish I'd kept those posts! (perhaps I should talk to Claus and see if his vast archive of the forum contains those old posts - but what's the point - you saw you dont think that now, so that's where it's at).

But IMO you have ALWAYS believed that atheism's central defining feature is rebellion. You came here looking for evidence to back that belief, and you think you've found it. You simply ignore any contrary evidence.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Christian
Why is it that a place where athiests (by far more than any other place I've seen) hang out where the rules are very very light, at the end give this net loss in terms of reputation and character?

The contention has always been that atheists hold themselves (and have more merit therefore) to a higher ethical and moral standard.

This is evidence of the contrary. Here is where facts and actions clash head on with rhetoric.
From the beginning I agitated for a heavier-handed moderation. I constantly pointed out that communities are defined ultimately by exclusion, and thus some exclusionary principle must be applied to this community. I am a constant voice for rules and limits: and I'm as atheist as they come.

Atheists do have higher ethical standards (in the sense that they do things because they are right, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward): the problems on this board are not from the atheists.

The fact that Hal & Co. were perhaps a bit naive about the behaviour of random strangers on the internet says nothing at all about atheism.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,


You found what you were looking for. My memory of your earliest days here is that you've had this "atheist/rebellion" theme right from the start. Remember your attempt to prove the bible was true using biblical prophecy and statistics? You stuck with that for a month or so until Stimpy handed you a lesson in statistics and you slunk away with a promise to 'get back to this once the details were worked out' (still waiting, by the way). You told me during that first debate that you KNEW atheists were simply in rebellion.

Of course, I also recall that you said at that time that you KNEW atheists were rebelling against what they knew to be the truth - that we know god exists, but we refuse to accept his dominion. It was clear to me that you (at that time) saw atheism as a refusal to face reality. You now deny this, and claim to have never said any such thing. Oh how I wish I'd kept those posts! (perhaps I should talk to Claus and see if his vast archive of the forum contains those old posts - but what's the point - you saw you dont think that now, so that's where it's at).

But IMO you have ALWAYS believed that atheism's central defining feature is rebellion. You came here looking for evidence to back that belief, and you think you've found it. You simply ignore any contrary evidence.


Loki:

I have repeatedly asked you to not do what you are doing. You are a Jeckyl and Hide to me.

I really don't know how else to tell you to stop.

[Loki]

Christian,

Now, from the phylosophical standpoint, I believe atheist have an excellent opportunity to self-regulate.
If you want to try and make any serious point at all, you need to stop conflating 'atheist' and 'skeptic' for a start.

I believe this is what was thought initially. Atheists will come here and will act accordingly with no need of rules.

The outcome of that was to get banned from schools.
IMO the way forward for the JREF is to restrict access to the forum to registered AND PAID members only.

Every public/free forum I've been to (sport, music, religion ) has had issues with (a) trolling/spamming; (b) legal rights; and (c) language. Most are heavily moderated. The only unmoderated one I can recall is simply a sea of abuse. I was recently reading through a very ligthly moderated christian forum (don't ask - long story) that was free to read but required registration (no cost) to post. A nice little debate between some Pentecostals and some Catholics about "salvation". The langauge was unrestrained. The accusations ranged from "heretic" (not much of an insult in my book!) through to "child molester" - and all over interpretation of scripture.

As far as I'm concerned, I learn a lot here, and I have a lot of fun reading the posts of some pretty smart and pretty humourous people. And yes, Ian has someredeeming qualities that go someway towards offsetting his relentless buffoonery. And there are a small number of posters (self styled skeptics and believers is about equal measure) that seem to have no sense of order at all, and use the cost free and anonymous nature of the internet to behave in a manner they'd never dream of in the 'real world'. This element hurts this, and every, forum. The simplest way forward is to make forum membership a privilege extended to JREF members only( "Hey you! Are you a member? JOIN NOW!").

[Christian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

From the beginning I agitated for a heavier-handed moderation. I constantly pointed out that communities are defined ultimately by exclusion, and thus some exclusionary principle must be applied to this community. I am a constant voice for rules and limits: and I'm as atheist as they come.

Ok.

Atheists do have higher ethical standards (in the sense that they do things because they are right, not out of fear of punishment or hope of reward): the problems on this board are not from the atheists.

A poster needed evidence, here it is.

The fact that Hal & Co. were perhaps a bit naive about the behaviour of random strangers on the internet says nothing at all about atheism.

I disagree, it is not random strangers. I have been here quite a while, it is not random strangers.

Just read the comments generated from where Mr. Bidlack's originally posted. Man, there are people in there who simply don't have a heart.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Loki
Even if you're right, and you CAN create an fully working set of objective rules that govern any and all moderation issues, it doesn't escape from the fact that the forum has to interact with the real world. There are legal (as in USA - legal) standards that must be met, even if they are in violation of your theoretical objective standards. What would you suggest if your 'objective standard' made behaviour 'X' okay, but the law disagrees? I wouldn't hold it against any moderators if they were forced to permit external legal influences on the boards. But even that needs to be specified.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,


[quote]IMO the way forward for the JREF is to restrict access to the forum to registered AND PAID members only.

Maybe you are right.

JREF members only( "Hey you! Are you a member? JOIN NOW!").

Was this directed at me?

[Loki]

Christian,

I have repeatedly asked you to not do what you are doing. You are a Jeckyl and Hide to me.
Yes, nice of you to bring up the "Jekyll and Hyde" analogy. That's pretty much how I feel about this issue - from my perspective you have at various times offered two completely contrasting opinions, and I cannot see the logic behind the change...

I really don't know how else to tell you to stop.
And I really don't know if I should stop! You've asked me to, and you've backed away from any such assertion now - so that tells me the issue is 'dead'.

But then I wonder how this could be, since you were so adamant about this 2 years ago. Sometimes I wonder whether you have some agenda which is being served by you perhaps "seeming" to back away from earlier comments.

But thinking about it I guess the most valid point here is that if I want to allege that you prevoius said something, I need to support it in some way, with more than just my memory. Since I can't bring forward any such evidence, then the correct behaviour is to leave it be. But it's not forgotten, and I'll be watching to see if your consistency waivers on this issue.

[Loki]

Christian,

Was this directed at me?
No, not a personal comment - just took the oppotunity to insert a paid advertisement. It was directed at any and all non-members. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you want to publicly include or exclude yourself from that catergory

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

Yahzi,

Hey, long time no see! How ya doing...

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,


No, not a personal comment - just took the oppotunity to insert a paid advertisement. It was directed at any and all non-members. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you want to publicly include or exclude yourself from that catergory


I have never paid to be here. The day I have to pay for being here, I will ask myself, what service am I being provided, what are my rights as a paying customer, etc. If I decide the service is worth it, they I will pay.

As it stands today, the only reason to pay is as a contribution to a cause. In that respect, I choose not to contribute to this particular cause.

[Loki]

Christian,

I have never paid to be here.
And in the interests of full disclosure, I have only been a member since last year - always intended to, just never got around to it.

The day I have to pay for being here, I will ask myself, what service am I being provided, what are my rights as a paying customer, etc. If I decide the service is worth it, they I will pay
And that's what I'm saying - IMO the quality of the service will increase if payment is required.

As it stands today, the only reason to pay is as a contribution to a cause. In that respect, I choose not to contribute to this particular cause.
Fair enough, it's your call. I'd suggest perhaps that again your failure to separate 'atheism' from 'skepticism' is blinding you to the good work done by the JREF in fighting against psychic frauds, etc. Personally, I think JREF membership is worth it even without a Forum, since somebody's got take on Sylvia Browne.

I give money to (some) christian charities not because I believe in their motives, but because I agree with their results. Perhaps you might find the ability to look beyond those parts of the JREF philosophy that you find unpalatable and see the results as being worth a contribution?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

I submit to you, they do it because they believe there is no such authority.The reason I find that so insulting right out of the gate is the dubious assumption it makes that Christians would actually score better than atheists on 'moral behavior' even if we agreed to measure both by Christian standards.

As for the validity of those standards themselves, the one thing most belief systems do not encourage is actually taking personal responsibility for wrestling with difficult questions about what is and what is not moral. Anyone who has actually shown up for that battle deserves some credit, even if the answers he comes up with aren't perfect.

But it may be that not everyone has the constitution to be a soldier in that cause. There are those who seem genuinely incapable of imagining what it would be like to have a set of moral standards of one's very own which, far from being cut in stone, required constant re-evaluation, and adherence to which was primarily self-enforced. If there really are such people, and the only thing that keeps them from running wild in the streets is the carrot-and-stick behavior modification methods of some primitive belief system, then persuading them to abandon that system might not be such a great idea (fortunately, it's practically impossible anyway).

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,

And that's what I'm saying - IMO the quality of the service will increase if payment is required.

And economics is well on your side on this one.


Fair enough, it's your call. I'd suggest perhaps that again your failure to separate 'atheism' from 'skepticism' is blinding you to the good work done by the JREF in fighting against psychic frauds, etc. Personally, I think JREF membership is worth it even without a Forum, since somebody's got take on Sylvia Browne.

I give money to (some) christian charities not because I believe in their motives, but because I agree with their results. Perhaps you might find the ability to look beyond those parts of the JREF philosophy that you find unpalatable and see the results as being worth a contribution?

This brings up a very interesting point. Something to ponder.