Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.
Of course he is. That’s been perfectly obvious from the very start, and it’s not going to change, because he just isn’t interested in productive discussion. I think that’s a problem with TSZ that we don’t give ourselves permission to ban people who simply are not interested in productive discussion.
Well you have my permission to ban him even if it isn’t mine to give. If someone gets angry about that, tell them it was my idea. I literally couldn’t give any less of a shit. If someone wants J-mac to stay, that is enough for me to consider their opinion worthless. I’m tired of seeing other people’s sensible contributions, even those I don’t agree with, polluted by J-mac’s brainless spam and trolling.
There are people around here I don’t agree with, and who post things I think are ridiculous, but at least conversation with these people are possible, and they don’t seem to be suffering from some sort of infantilistic behavioral abnormality.
This!
The J-mac experiment has run for long enough. He spams pointless and stupid threads, and he spams other people’s threads with stupid and pointless posts.
Enough already.
There is a rule against spamming.
I think it is fair to point out that, IMHO, all of PS, PT, and PF have evolved (not biological evolution!) to a state where many of the posts are from the same posters stating their same positions. But at least there is still more signal and less noise in the OPs.
Also, I am not in favor of banning people for incoherence, only in favor of banning incoherent OPs. Banning should be limited repeated instances of the things Alan mentioned as the criteria the moderators use for refusing OPs.
I’d be happy with that. It’s consistent with the thought that writing an OP is a privilege, not a right, so having that privilege revoked is not depriving someone of something to which they are entitled.
Alan,
Recently, you have admitted you cannot accept the existence of God/ID.
I sympathized with you…
Maybe should elaborate on that a bit more… I have a feeling that if you did, you’d be able to better understand my position on many issues I discuss here…
Just curious: are there any other sites open to all opinions like TSZ? If not, then this is THE STRENGTH of this site. Any banning will lead to the death of TSZ.
Definitely a troll. No doubt about it.
Vs. a troll who won’t state his own (which by behaviour shows as grotesquely distorted generic quasi-theist) worldview, simply so that he can attack EVERYONE ELSE with the impunity of NO COMPARISON. Disgusting, intentionally insulting, near stalking, odious forum habits that surely this person admits to no one except themselves while in a lonely place wondering why he doesn’t ‘get respect. Sadly, almost no light of soul emitting from that spiritually angry darkness. : (
Another option would be more democratic than banning. There is an Ignore button here for that purpose.
Re: OPs, is there any list available of # of posts by Author at TSZ? If so, I’d be curious to see the #s.
So, just for the sake of the argument:
Do you agree the idea of genealogical Adam and Eve leads unequivocally to bestiality?
Yes? or No?
What people tend to call trolling, just like Gregory here, is when their worldview is challenged beyond their ability to respond to their satisfaction…
In case of Gregory, another such example was the ID inference: ID vs id.
He couldn’t answer it because it would expose his false reasoning…
Other examples can be easily found too…
I bet Alan accepts the existence of ID.
It would be simpler to just elaborate on what motivates your positions.
Or incest?
Does J Mac think evolution involves matings between modern species and ancient species?
What, are you blind?
What is this? There was free booze at the retirement homes for the Superbowl and our frequent commentators are hungover? 😂
I would ban Nonlin too. The guy is insufferable
If it wasn’t clear, and while I loathed & denounced the way Mung was run-off as Moderator, the lone ‘religious’ moderator at T(AM)SZ, I am nevertheless against banning, other than according to the rules that Lizzie laid down. There are holes in those simple rules (which, the founder of Peaceful Science did indeed break, even according to Alan), but they are not the worst on the internet, and have served relatively well, in comparison with other sites.
1) Is the issue really Cain’s wife? Kinda biased against girls, somehow there? And then it’s supposed to be about Cain & his wife? Or to go with Seth & his wife -> ?
2) Or is that simply not ‘your’ (his)Story?
3) And you want a precise year of Origin, calculated according to GMT AD/CE 2020 on Earth?! If so, at least what’s the range of/to Origin that you propose?
I didn’t write “God/ID” . That is redundant, just say ID . Yes Alan thinks ID exists, it is wrong but it still exists. If nothing else as a Trojan Horse.
Speaking of eyes, seem to have skipped the part of sharing what motivates you.
Nope, maybe something about souls making us divinely sanctified human beings Any co-mingling with non sanctioned humans, bad. Mingling with your sister ,no problem.
newton,
Umm, ok. So, what’s the difference between “Intelligent Design theory” (IDT) and simply “Intelligent Design”? Does the above notation make sense?
I was under the impression that as a self-described “apatheist” (unless that’s changed since then), Alan does *not* “think ID exists.” Or is this just a believes vs. thinks thing?
Will move the above questions to the other thread, as it met a pause in the conversation here.
Interesting question.For me , ID encompasses both “science of detection” and the marketing,merchandising, promotional function which one might regard primary motivation.
It is hard to see how one can deny the marketing function of ID exists. The whole “ teach both sides” is evidence of the promotion of the existence of “another side”. True or not, the ID narrative exists.
We would need to consult the primary source for a definitive answer.
Ok.
And the movement exists – who/what appears not to exist is the “Intelligent Designer”.
newton,
Ok, so if I understand, we need to bring the ‘movement’ part into the equation also.
3 different terms of engagement (communications):
1) Intelligent Design = “purposeful arrangement of parts,
2) Intelligent Design theory (IDT) – promotes ID, among many other claims to being part of ‘a’ singular IDT as officially endorsed by the IDM, which is IDT headquarters in Seattle, &
3) Intelligent Design movement (IDM) – markets, merchandises, promotes both IDT and the “ID narrative”.
It should be obvious that I too am in agreement that “the movement exists” (Fox), since more than just about anyone in the world over the past 15+ years, I’ve have been at times more or less engaged studying it up close & personal (as foolish as that may sound!). = P
*NB, for me IDT has become synonymous with ideological Intelligent Designism (IDism); the collapse & blurred lines make it sometimes next to impossible to distinguish from person-to-person in the IDM
Human designers exist. That’s not in doubt, not as an ‘ontological’ category. We are agreed about that, right?
Persons exist. Also not a doubtful issue, right? Good.
However, if by “Intelligent Designer” you simply mean “God of the Bible and the Abrahamic faiths”, then we are only able to conclude there is no “strictly scientific” proof of that, not that there is disproof. Thus, one’s philosophy &/or theology/worldview inevitably becomes involved, before and after ‘science ends’ in the conversation.
Alan, has claimed at TSZ to be personally “apatheistic”, which means, in short, he just doesn’t care if there is a “God of the Bible and the Abrahamic faiths” or not. Basically, “don’t bug him about it cuz he just DGAS.”
This framing of his participation (whether or not he actually believes it, no one really knows) distinguishes his atheism-biased “contribution” to the conversation. That’s what makes him into pretty much a completely boring person whenever topics relating to theology or religion come up, and at worst, he poisons the water ‘not caring’ with frivolous comments.
The statement, “who/what appears not to exist is the ‘Intelligent Designer’,” however, is not actually an “apatheistic” statement. It is instead an anti-theistic statement, & a rather frivolous one at that. At such expressions, I must push back here at the Fox, who mounts little challenge or curiosity on the bigger questions.
Yes, but it’s rather what someone might do professionally or as a hobby. It’s not a defining feature. Ooh look – a designer!
Sure! Everything that exists, exists.
I don’t mean anything by “The Intelligent Designer”. It’s not a term that means anything. More to the point, ID proponents are very coy about details themselves.
The God thing makes no sense to me logically or intellectually; neither do I appear to have an emotional need for a god but It doesn’t worry me if others have a different view. Usual caveat.
What do you want from me? I think the whole religious edifice (or edifices – none stand out as more coherent) is built on human imagination. I can’t take it seriously because it is so obviously made up.
Maybe I’m wrong to describe myself as an apatheist. I’m certainly not an anti theist. Live and let live, I say. Big questions for me are climate change and… well, that’s enough to finish us on its own.
Yes, I believe we agree that ‘design’ & ‘designer’ (both uncapitalized) are limited metaphors & shouldn’t be exaggerated in their usage. The DI & IDM are trying to expand the uses of ‘design’ in, to be nice, unconventional and non-traditional ways. Both the majority of Abrahamic theists as well as the decent-sized minority of atheists (depending on where one lives) are pushing back at their terminological chicanery with ‘design/Design’ and ‘intelligent/Intelligent’. In short, their intentional double-talking.
Not if you actually speak with them up close and personal with the cameras and recorders off. It’s kind of about more than just “the details” though, just like our lives & the origin stories we each hold, don’t you think, Alan? Every IDist I’ve met in person will openly speak a theological language of some kind with you, some a philosophical language as well. The only one who didn’t seem at all receptive to that who I met, seemed rather cold & distant, mightv’e been the travel, was Michael Denton in a brief encounter in Boston. Not surprisingly, he didn’t want to talk about his ID among the Catholics at that event, as they’d quickly look past some of the distractions that evangelical Protestants, and much commentary here in reaction to them, get stuck on.
Then try ‘thinking’ another way. _/\_ Why stop at admitting such limitation? All it took for me was to look to the East, when I had been stuck mainly or only looking West. It often takes a shock of some kind for people to ‘get outside of themselves’, the experience of a ‘reverse perspective’ that entered one’s life in an unexpected way, perhaps after having been trapped by an ideology of their own or shared making, for a few or many years.
I may come back to this if there is time. It is not a light question, esp. in light of the claim that it is “obviously made up” according to a theologically ‘unmusical’ and highly ‘skeptical’ site Admin, who does indeed come across as sometimes anti-religious. “live & let live” a nice ideal type that never actually smiles back in one’s mirror at the end or beginning of the day.
You continue to be perfect for this position, Alan. It is hard to tell when you are sincerely seeking or just a crude ‘skeptic’, as you muffle the language of the heart. Deep ecology & ‘gaia’ won’t ‘save’ us from being ‘finished’, champion de France. The same one place of Sanctuary remains there, even in that loud & grumbling nation-state.
More talk of banning by the skeptics.
You guys just love that. Alan is still clenching at the bit.
phoodoo,
Did you mean champing at the bit or clenching the butt? It changes the meaning somewhat.
Anyone with any integrity would self ban. It’s not like J-Mac has not been told…
And in any case, your lot tend to be a bit more reactionary then mere banning. Burnt any witches lately? Murdered any abortion doctors? Driven any transgender teens to suicide recently?
Why not an OP.? I’ve habitually shied away* from discussions about personal belief because I don’t see my role as persuading anyone from a belief that comforts them. I doubt I can be persuaded to take on religious concepts that I have considered unsatisfactory since childhood. Fair Warning?
*Had a horse once that was bomb-proof in traffic but shied at butterflies.
Too broad a brush, the vast number of theists do none of those things.
And yet no one has been banned.
In my opinion, the Movement is ID. The math , the analogies, etc are after the fact justifications.
I would go 1) ID- the effort to get religious teachings into public schools science curriculum. Circumvent court rulings .Through whatever means.
2) the intelligent design theory, whatever works best in order to accomplish 1,
a) attack present science, teach the controversy
b) present ID as the default,
c) while at same time excluding traditional design criteria answering the questions of who, what ,when, how the actual design came to be . Go with analogy.
I get it
Personally , it is political first, and science as a beard.
Alan Fox,
First show you sincerely care about your own soul. Not interested in wasted energy. You have shown zero sincere interest in a collaborative science, philosophy, theology/worldview conversation. This reveals stubborn brokenness, thus not someone to put in a spotlight.
newton,
Yes, the IDM is political first, with some tempting ideological quasi-science and a bit of actual science mixed in. The leaders (Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, then Johnson, Meyer, et al.) got hold of a concept duo, then wanted to see how far they could run with it. They’ve managed to get a fair distance so far, but can’t keep misleading unsuspecting people for too long.
Sorry, the movement is the IDM. For me, a retired sociologist, this is like 2 + 2 = 4.
Sir, normally you ‘understand.’ What’s the problem here? This isn’t a natural science thing. So, please stop thinking like a naturalist.
Effort = movement. The efforts are what the IDM does & people in it do.
“ID” itself (excuse that I didn’t add further defs there), is simply “the (believed or imputed) fact that the Earth & everything in it is created by God (Intelligent Designer)”. That’s what “ID” means in short; God created & designed the heavens & the Earth.
Your #2abc, is still about the IDM. Sir, it doesn’t seem you are able in your own mind to think this through clearly yet.
1) Thing itself
2) Theory about thing
3) Movement promoting theory about thing.
Does this help clarify?
I think souls are a human invention. Sincerely!
Me neither. It would be a waste of energy to argue over whether souls are real, God is real, an afterlife is a possibility. None of this can be established by argument or evidence. You are either emotionally drawn to the idea or not. I’m not.
Disagree but perhaps having a keen interest in matters scientific is not necessarily showing it.
I’m open to the idea that philosophers can complement the scientific search for knowledge but modern philosophers sometimes seem not to have kept pace with scientific developments (Kantian Naturalist is one shining exception to that generality) and scientists can be dismissive. Certainly the education system I was taught in encouraged a divergence into two cultures (see C P Snow’s Rede Lecture)
I’ve made my views on theology quite clear, I guess.
I’m always up for a frank exchange of ideas across cultures and ideologies.I’d love it if more such conversations took place here. There’s no impediment other than the time people want to invest in such conversations and whether they find this venue conducive.
So you say. I don’t feel broken (a bit worn in places, especially the lower back) and I don’t think I’m unusually stubborn. Examples?
I wouldn’t expect a discussion to be about me but the merits of a religious life and how one can convince oneself to take on something one has always viewed as made up. (Excuse attack of Princess-Anneism)
Alan Fox,
Which to you seems to signify either ‘therefore, hopeless’ or ‘therefore, meaningless’. King Solomon’s version, or Nietzsche’s then? It is obvious which version you have CHOSEN for yourself, even if you didn’t acknowledge the choice itself when it happened.
On the evangelicalistic side most people here are familiar with already, BioLogos, Reasons to Believe, Answers in Genesis, even Peaceful Science are there for that. I suggest you make the effort to ask such questions & engage in such discussions there with them. It is there mission to address and answer your ‘sincere’ & ‘caring’ questions about culture and ideology, in a way that might bring Scripture alive to what is now an empty mind and closed heart to it. It’s not my job to argue with a hyper-skeptic fool on the internet, who while denying it, covers the ears of his heart.
Gregory,I’m not sure if you are missing the main point I was making. I don’t have an emotional need to fill a God-shaped hole in my life. Others do and plenty of those find something that suits them with, I would guess, variable amounts of satisfaction. I’m not looking for salvation. My curiosity, such as it is, is focused on how others reconcile their emotional need to their religion of choice and how much that choice is influenced by ethnic and cultural background, education, evaluation of alternatives, how much choice is voluntary and based on reason and so on.
Alan Fox,
So you’re embracing death with no salvation possible?
Your externalistic curiosity means nothing here. A lot of people don’t know their own needs, only their desires & wants.
Are you suggesting Alan, and other members of the great uwashed as you see them, need fire insurance?
I can’t speak for alan but I would say no salvation is necessary afterall i, salvation, is a contrived notion born of ‘men’s” imagination.
Projecting a bit here aren’t ‘we’, Gregory?
PeterP,
Strange thing is, of all the people here, Gregory comes across as the one least comfortable in his own skin.
I embrace life: the more so because it is the only one I (or anyone else) get. I’m sorry to tell you there is no salvation: not for me, not for you, not for anyone. All of us are destined to die at some point.
I can’t speak for “a lot of people” but it seems to me needs, desires, wants are powerful emotions that can overrule our ability to think realistically and logically.
I hate to be That Guy, but could we move the secularism & spirituality conversation elsewhere and just talk about moderation issues here?
Kantian Naturalist,
You’re right, of course.
I concur. He seems quite threatened by anyone who doesn’t live their lives as he thinks they should.
certainly
Yes, let’s get back to Moderation. Apatheists are pretty much the scummiest pretenders in the roost. Don’t care; do care; can’t say, but will insult. So banal.
There are other clarifications here that could be made in Moderation or elsewhere for better communications.
Alan Fox,
More than that, best to go mute. Speak only for yourself. Self-certainty that you at least won’t be saved, even if salvation had more than 0% chance, is what you are left with alone with according to your current dark worldview. It is a worldview, that most people around the world, almost everyone I’ve met, thankfully!, don’t share.
I’ll move to Sandbox and copy a few bits from Gregory.
Back on the subject of moderation: I will note that commenters who show a persistent pattern of trolling may find their commenting privileges restricted.
In piam memoriam fundatrix nostrae has its limits, folks.