Noyau (1)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)”

  1. Is there something perverse going on behind the scenes here that we don’t know about?

    Lizzie and Frankie sittin’ in a tree…

  2. walto: I’m curious. What site or sites do you two put forward as places that do exemplify”moderator integrity”?

    Evolution News and Views.

  5. walto,

    Evolution News and Views.

    Is there a forum of this type there?

    No. As Larry Moran pointed out, IDC sites don’t like their readers to learn what their supporters are like. Nothing turns off potential converts faster than seeing the likes of JoeG, Barry, Kairosfocus, and Bornagain77 ranting in the comments.

  8. Mung: Amen.

    LOL! Good old Professional Butthurt Victim Mung. Always the first to whine when the admins don’t let him game the system and spread his lies for Jesus, er, the Intelligent Designer.

  10. First, mod/admin Patrick is now stalking Erik with questions (repeated ad nauseam) that Erik has clearly already answered *in his own chosen way*.

    It didn’t seem there is a rule that a poster should be forced to answer an incessant DEMAND of questions like Patrick is making here. When will he let it go? It is tedious and boring by itself. And coming from the position of one who understands Erik’s ‘reading’ quite clearly, it plainly shows the lack of erudition of Patrick.

    KN, who has rather gone sheepishly silent, also seemed to understand Erik’s ‘spiritual interpretation’ position, but himself lacked the personal characteristic of ‘spiritual reading’, which is apparently simply a jaded result of his ex-Reform Jewish atheism. It is not surprising that Patrick, who apparently holds nothing more than a 2-yr college degree in harassment and laziness, didn’t take the time to read any of Erik’s links and that as an atheist he refused to charitably interpret the main points. I’ve met high school dropouts with more integrity and wisdom than Patrick, but they let him swing his angry tongue against theology and religion here.

    And then Lizzie’s nominated ‘mod/admin’ posted this:

    “Perhaps if your mother had ever demonstrated unconditional love or your father hadn’t failed to teach you how to be a man in the world things might be different.” – Patrick

    How low of character does Patrick turn out to be in saying such things about the mother & father of someone he doesn’t even know, Lizzie? Is this *really* the kind of taunting mod/admin TAMSZ wishes to licence? 🙁 🙁 To me it just demonstrates ugly damaged pitiful belligerent atheism. But maybe Lizzie doesn’t see it that way (insults to mothers & fathers are allowed?), who knows?

    The reputation of this blog is steadily declining (without making any comparison to UD, which spurred Lizzie to start this den of skeptics/atheists in the first place).

  11. Gregory: ” To me it just demonstrates ugly damaged pitiful belligerent atheism. ”

    What does atheism have to do with being belligerent?
    I have seen bad behavior from both theists and non-theists.

  12. “I have seen bad behavior from both theists and non-theists.” – Carpathian (mountains?)

    Yes, fair enough. I agree and have seen that too. Grace, patience and mercy are not always easy paths to walk in human life, don’t you agree?

    This site, however, has a significant angry militant atheist, anti-theist outspoken minority. Are you aware of that?

    The behaviour of Patrick, one of these angry militant atheist anti-theist voices, in this case, comes across as belligerent. He is stalking, demanding and aggressively mocking one of the few theists here, while at the same time demonstrating that he simply doesn’t understand the explanations he is being given.

    Perhaps belligerent anti-theism and questioning peoples’ ‘good faith,’ while calling them all kinds of deplorable names on the internet is o.k. according to your worldview, even if it goes against the site founder Lizzie’s intentions. But imho, whether it is or not, Patrick’s angry atheism is simply not well-represented by his ignorant attacks and laziness to learn, nor does his position as mod/admin demonstrate much more than ugly bias on this ‘skeptical’ site.

  14. Gregory,

    First, mod/admin Patrick is now stalking Erik with questions (repeated ad nauseam) that Erik has clearly already answered *in his own chosen way*.

    Erik’s chosen way is to dishonestly and cravenly avoid answering.

    It didn’t seem there is a rule that a poster should be forced to answer an incessant DEMAND of questions like Patrick is making here. When will he let it go? It is tedious and boring by itself. And coming from the position of one who understands Erik’s ‘reading’ quite clearly, it plainly shows the lack of erudition of Patrick.

    Erik made a claim about a supposedly historical event. Apparently it takes sociology training to learn to not see this.

    “Perhaps if your mother had ever demonstrated unconditional love or your father hadn’t failed to teach you how to be a man in the world things might be different.” – Patrick

    How low of character does Patrick turn out to be in saying such things about the mother & father of someone he doesn’t even know

  15. Gregory,

    The behaviour of Patrick, one of these angry militant atheist anti-theist voices, in this case, comes across as belligerent. He is stalking, demanding and aggressively mocking one of the few theists here, while at the same time demonstrating that he simply doesn’t understand the explanations he is being given.

    Erik has given no explanation and has admitted as much.

    He made a claim. He should clarify and support it or retract it. Your decision to keep spreading your skirts for him to hide behind speaks volumes about your character but doesn’t change his obligations.

  16. Patrick: He made a claim. He should clarify and support it or retract it. Your decision to keep spreading your skirts for him to hide behind speaks volumes about your character but doesn’t change his obligations.

    I just love the moral outrage.

  17. Mung: I just love the moral outrage.

    It’s almost as funny as when Brave Sir Mung gets all whiny and sanctimonious, bawling about how TSZ treats him so badly.

  18. hotshoe_ [to Erik]: It’s beyond stupid to claim that these are “your terms” when YOU were the one who extended the topic from general religious/spiritual language to your unclear but specifically-historical statement about the Flood.

    If you didn’t want to go off topic, YOU should not have done that.

    But since you did, YOU should have the common decency not to say it’s someone else’s fault.

    Agreed. I might have some sympathy for Erik and the quandary he finds himself in if he had stuck with a simple, if somewhat cowardly, “That’s just the way I read it.” position. But he didn’t. He compounded his evasion by oscillating between an insistence that extra-textual evidence was off-topic and writing

    The extent of archeological etc. confirmation of the Old Testament is about the same as for Herodotus. This includes the flood story – at least the toponyms are recognisable. By this measure, Genesis is as good as Herodotus.
    [Emphasis added]

    then making always-vague allusions to ice ages, mammoths and fossils in the Himalayas as supporting his position.
    I just want to know, given the claims Erik has made and the allusions he has made to supporting evidence, whether he believes that there has ever been a flood that left only eight human survivors. I’ll admit that I am somewhat curious as to whether he also believes that there was ever a time when humanity consisted on one man and one woman, who had a conversation with a walking talking serpent. However, since he as made no claim in that regard, that issue is off-topic.

  19. Gregory: The thing you don’t seem to want to understand (though you appear to try very hard to remain stuck in hatred and anger towards believers), walto, is that I am joining THEIR team too. We are not as stupid or as small as….

    Oh, but you ARE! Much stupider actually! You’re simply not in a position to realize this, being as stupid as you obviously are.

    Your “paper” was absolutely hilarious–for all its vaunted “legibility.”

  20. Wow, just like atheist Ronda Rousey went down recently to her humble and caring opponent Christian Holly Holm, so tonight did world heavyweight champion Wladimir Klitschko fall to Christian Tyson Fury.

    Rousey is just “not a good person” according to several people. And Klitschko is a devil-worshipper according to Fury. (!)

    “‘Goliath was a champion, a monster who had never been beaten, and then this young guy, David, came forward, a child who believed in God and did it,’ Fury says. ‘God gave him the power. What was right will always prevail over wrong. Good will always prevail over evil. I see that in me versus Klitschko. To be honest with you, I know Klitschko is a devil-worshipper.”

    “He’s a clown.” – Wladimir Klitschko

    The clowning aggresive atheists here at TAMSZ have repeatedly put forth a single ‘scientistic’ narrative that simply doesn’t play out in reality. Don’t they participate in humanity other than rudimentary atheist circles? So sad and despairing. And they don’t seem ready to even try to understand how a person’s FAITH impacts their life on a pragmatic and practical basis.

    “‘My opinion is that I follow what the Lord says. Or I try to. Others are following what they want to do, basically. They are living for their self. I am living for God.

    ‘When you see a man who is filled up with God, you think he’s round the bend. When a man’s highly spirited for the Lord, you think, “This guy’s lost his marbles, he’s a nutcase”. If ever you want to get rid of somebody you don’t want to talk to, just mention God. They’re out of there.”

    Heavyweight champion of the world. Evidence.

  21. Gregory: Heavyweight champion of the world. Evidence.

    Capricious god… ‘I’m not going to do any good today, but I’ll make sure my faithful athletes prosper.’

    Evidence – for you being a tool.

  22. Rich,

    Capricious god… ‘I’m not going to do any good today, but I’ll make sure my faithful athletes prosper.’

    And he certainly knows how to pick ’em. This guy Fury is as batshit as Samson was:

    ‘We live in an evil world,’ he says. ‘The devil is very strong at the minute, very strong, and I believe the end is near. The bible tells me the end is near. The world tells me the end is near. Just a short few years, I reckon, away from being finished.

    ‘Abusing the planet, the wars in the Middle East, the famines, the earthquakes, the natural disasters, all these things are talked about 2000 years ago before they even happened. Prophesised. So now it’s all coming true…

    ‘All these rock stars and singers and these famous people, it is common knowledge that they are all involved in an occult group of Satan-worshippers and all that sort of stuff. A man who does evil things and worships an evil one, how can he win over a man who wants to do good things and preach good stuff?

    …They say we only use a small portion of our brains. So maybe when we die, the full brain is unlocked. Maybe we can time travel. Maybe we can be anywhere at once. Maybe we can teleport. These aren’t new words. Teleport ain’t a new word. It’s written in the scriptures.’

  24. Erik wrote on 2015/11/29 at 9:34 am:

    But, just to be clear, you do NOT think that Patrick deserves a public admonishment for his behaviour, addressed to him by name?

    Feel free to admonish me yourself, right here. Tell me how horrible I am for expecting you to participate in good faith.

  25. Erik wrote on 2015/11/29 at 10:45 am:

    It’s about him accusing me of bad faith and bullying me for weeks. It’s about him accusing me of lack of integrity while having no integrity himself (adherence to the rules that he is supposed to uphold – instead he began changing the rules).

    I have enough integrity to answer questions about my claims. You do not. I engage in good faith by asking questions to understand what you are saying. You cower behind the rules to avoid answering.

    It’s not bullying to point out your failings. You may not like looking in that mirror, but that’s your fault.

  26. Erik wrote on 2015/11/29 at 12:36 pm:

    We (used to) have this rule about good faith. Are moderators exempt from it? Patrick broke it.

    That is a lie. An out and out falsehood that you know to be false. I have been trying for over two months to understand your claim but you’ve been too terrified to respond. Your cowardice has caused you to not participate in good faith here and your dishonesty is causing you to project that behavior on to others.

  27. Erik, We (used to) have this rule about good faith. Are moderators exempt from it? Patrick broke it.

    Patrick, That is a lie. An out and out falsehood that you know to be false.

    According to Elizabeth, you broke that rule. I’ll go with that. You haven’t realised it, but your ability to dictate things to me has radically diminished during the last 24 hours. Perhaps I will soon be able to ignore you completely, as Neil suggested. And as you deserve.

  28. Erik whining about Patrick again;

    He challenged my integrity, honesty, and good faith. These things actually matter to me. He was intent on destroying my reputation.

    Hey, Erik, if you’re listening:
    You don’t have any reputation here to destroy except that of a bigoted credulous backwoods ass whose only claim to achievement is that you can spell in English. Which has been the case since you first opened your mouth here – or the first time I noticed you – long ago. Even KN finally caught on after the way you treated him so badly for so long. Patrick has nothing to do with your problem. Your problem is you. Grow up and quit blaming others.

  30. Erik wrote on 2015/11/29 at 5:43 pm:

    If you have been paying attention, Patrick made it very sure that I could not ignore all of his posts. He challenged my integrity, honesty, and good faith. These things actually matter to me.

    You should take better care of them, then.

    He was intent on destroying my reputation.

    No, you’re doing that just fine on your own. I’m merely pointing it out.

    If you don’t want to be considered a dishonest coward who isn’t participating in good faith, stop behaving like one. Answer questions about your claim or retract it.

  31. Erik, FYI, the Jehovah’s Witnesses who told you that the fossil evidence supported a biblical flood Lied.To.You.

    Erik whines:

    He challenged my integrity, honesty, and good faith. These things actually matter to me. He was intent on destroying my reputation.

    No, Erik. You did that all on your lonesome.
    While I agree with you that Patrick did finally break the “assume good faith” rule, he only did so after YOU had broken it multiple times. So your complaint lacks standing. I suspect that you perceived some of his earlier posts as being rule-breaking, but that would just be your guilty conscience at work.
    😉

  32. Erik,

    Patrick, That is a lie. An out and out falsehood that you know to be false.

    According to Elizabeth, you broke that rule.

    As the rest of my comment that you carefully elided makes clear, I’m referring to my own behavior. I have been acting in good faith throughout the discussion in an attempt to understand your claim. It’s about time you did the same.

  33. Asshole Gregory calls atheists a “depraved kind” — and then cries when his comment gets Guano’d.

    That man deserves a prize.

  34. Erik:
    Erik, We (used to) have this rule about good faith. Are moderators exempt from it? Patrick broke it.
    Patrick, That is a lie. An out and out falsehood that you know to be false.
    According to Elizabeth, you broke that rule. I’ll go with that. You haven’t realised it, but your ability to dictate things to me has radically diminished during the last 24 hours. Perhaps I will soon be able to ignore you completely, as Neil suggested. And as you deserve.

    Just answer the questions. If you ignore Patrick, I will continue asking. If you ignore me, someone else will continue on.

  35. Allan Miller: Yep, God loves to see his man beat shit out of the other guy.

    Actually, David killed Goliath.

    But perhaps in some cases an ass-whooping is sufficient to get the message across.

  37. Erik,

    He challenged my integrity, honesty, and good faith.

    For good reason.

    These things actually matter to me.

    Then act with integrity, honesty, and good faith for a change.

  38. keiths: Then act with integrity, honesty, and good faith for a change.

    Because it’s the right thing to do? keiths book of moral standards chapter and verse please.

  39. Mung: Because it’s the right thing to do? keiths book of moral standards chapter and verse please.

    Can we try the B side for a change?

  40. Mung: Because it’s the right thing to do? keiths book of moral standards chapter and verse please.

    It’s the same book you and other theists use. Personal bias.

  45. The goddamned dirtwad fifthmonarchyman is telling us that we are all lying about being atheists. Again. By misdirection, of course, in his usual underhanded way, so it’s not directly Guano.

    What a fine example of dishonesty in christianity he is.

    And they wonder why I hate them.

  47. No need to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    I’ve seen Fifth’s math game in action.

  48. Neil Rickert:

    hotshoe_: What a fine example of dishonesty in christianity he is.

    Don’t assume he is dishonest, when he might instead be deluded.

    petrushka: No need to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

    I’ve seen Fifth’s math game in action.

    Okay, points taken.

    Grump. Grump. I still think he’s being a dishonest troll when he repeats that particular everyone-knows-god-but-you-evil-atheists-just-deny-it-for-reasons garbage.

    And that particular brand of garbage is peculiarly christian in my experience. We certainly don’t get that from Hindus or Buddhists or Jews or Wiccans …

    And it’s possible to be both malicious AND stupid. AND deluded.

    Which is my working hypothesis to explain fifthmonarchyman’s behavior.

  49. hotshoe_: And it’s possible to be both malicious AND stupid. AND deluded.

    And still be right.

    Which is why I have to take even atheists seriously. They could be malicious and stupid and deluded, but they still might be right.

  50. Mung: And still be right.

    Which is why I have to take even atheists seriously. They could be malicious and stupid and deluded, but they still might be right.

    Sure! (Although it’s probably not the way to bet; ad hominem notwithstanding, if you find someone to be all of those things, balance of probabilities they aren’t really going to be worth listening to on the off chance they come up with some gem of an idea …)

    But in any case, fifthmonarchyman (whether having any of those attributes, or not) is both wrong and rude.

    Too bad for him. Not a problem for me. Where’s the shrug emoji?

    Just passing time here, and choosing to add my insignificant little bit of truth to the sum total of truth in our universe.

Comments are closed.