…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
How is the place “biased”, in your view, Gregory? I would agree that its population of regulars is more atheist than not (although there are many whose views on religion I don’t know) – but as you know, there is an open invitation for anyone to come here – we ban only for a very narrow and well-defined list of behaviours, and anyone can have the rights to post an OP on request.
What do you suggest we do to encourage a less “biased” membership? Because there’s absolutely no bias at the selection end. Of the two bannees, one is a theist and the other an atheist.
It IS open to all voices. So why do you think the “representation” is skewed?
Yes, I recognise that, KN. The aggressive atheists on this site are in the wrong. You are not one of these people.
Perhaps one day, Lizzie will establish some kind of rule about aggressive atheism here at TSZ. For now, she seems to welcome atheists across the range. This makes TSZ unwelcoming to theists, regardless of Lizzie’s ‘well-meaning’ overtures. The aggressive atheists are not disciplined, not warned, not dissuaded from their aggressive anti-theist stance. One person was even recently celebrated here for being “rude, mean and insulting” on purpose.
Exactly.
And I also agree with the rest of your post about religion. I am not anti-religion per se, either.
What sort of rule did you have in mind, Gregory?
I would point out that there are at least half a dozen theists who post here regularly and discuss issues rather than the failings of other posters, and whose posts do not routinely wind up in guano.
It’s a simple social fact.
Tell the aggressive atheists to cool it. Take a stand. Why? Because they are pompous, arrogant and aggressive. There are 4 or 5 here (sadly, most recently walto) who antagonise theists simply for being theists. You would really have to be blind to miss this, Lizzie.
Except that no one here except maybe you thinks that TSZ is even so much as trying to be a “representation of society”.
As far as I’m concerned, TSZ is just a bunch of folks who enjoy talking with each other about some topics of shared intellectual interest and who enjoy the process of discovering areas of agreement and disagreement. (In case you haven’t been paying attention, every participant here has disagreed with every other participant at least once.)
Not even in my wildest dreams would I imagine that TSZ is even trying to be an accurate representation of anything, let alone “society”.
I would like to see more people of faith here, but none of the philosophically sophisticated theists I know are interested in being part of another on-line community.
It will be progress when you get a theist as a moderator. WJM would be a foolish choice. But if you ever find someone suitable, it would be progress.
Well, you have been regularly criticized here for being angry. In response, you wrote:
(for which, again, many thanks for defending goodness and being mad at evil. The world appreciates it) Anyhow, since (being one of the bottom 5 here and, hopefully closing in on the #rump_bottom spot) I figured the “evil” moniker to be directed at me–though perhaps at others too. So, I added “evil” to my letter closings (which, tbh, was already long enough to be kind of unwieldy).
And you responded as follows:
Now, admittedly, that’s a conditional statement rather than a direct assertion that I am evil (in the way that you have directly asserted that I am an insurance salesman, knew KN before I got here, teach someplace called Farmington, etc., etc.), but I think it’s right there in the ballpark.
OTOH, if you are here apologizing for possibly hurting my feelings by suggesting that I am evil when you don’t really think so, I am happy to forgive you. I’m a nice philosophist that way. Let me know and I’ll remove that from my closing, which, let’s face it, could stand some shortening.
I have no problem with you being a theist. I couldn’t care less. It’s that you’re an aggressive, obnoxious fucktard that bothers me. Try to learn that difference.
Why anyone would want to be a moderator, I have no idea, but I nominate mung.
ETA…even though as I’ve mentioned before, I think he’s wrong about pretty much everything. 🙂
I am not going to change my rules. I am trying, however, to be a little more consistent in applying them. It is a problem though that the most egregious rule-violator is you.
It’s certainly not a general bias against theists.
Well, right now, I don’t need moderators. In any case, the moderator role here is actually an admin role – and one of their jobs is keeping the place actually working.
And when I do, their religious beliefs will be irrelevant to my choice.
This is a point really worth making. I’ve been vehemently disagreeing with keiths over the last few days over whether “selection” can be said to occur in a hypothetical scenario in which resources are unlimited.
On the other hand, I agree with him about vision science. Well, mostly. A bit anyway.
No, they likely just aren’t interested in the drivel pushed here with anti-theism bias. When Lizzie was ‘away’, this place was desolate, nothing much creative or new. Theists are interested and active in participating in online communities, KN, that should be obvious. Just not this one.
I’ve been paying attention. Probably too much. Carry on with your anti-IDism.
The facts say differently. Cognitive ‘science,’ architecture & music have no say. These are sociological facts.
And if its any consolation, I’d agree that Mung would make a good moderator, the first theist moderator at TSZ. But I doubt he’d want the position. 😉
Yes, walto, I’m angry at evil. Aren’t you?
See, Gregory, you object to “aggressive atheism”. Yet you post sentences like this.
And this is mild compared with some of your descriptions of the views of those you disagree with.
You are, to be honest, not only way the most aggressive theist on this site (none of the other theists berates me for “apostasy”, for instance) but one of the most aggressive theists I have ever met online.
Or offline, for that matter. All the theists I know IRL are lovely.
Are those 2 things supposed to be exclusive? Can’t you do that without changing your rules?
Speaking for my self, yes I get angry at the evil people cause, and by evil, I mean harm.
But I seem to have a much more straightforward definition of “harm” than you do.
As you have never posted a single word of substance here, Gregory, I hardly think you’re in a position to call the OPs that do get posted “drivel.”
Many have asked you to, just once, say something of some substantive interest here? Are you really too afraid of the anti-theist mosquitoes, to give it a shot? Do you need protection from the shallow, USAmerican philosophists?
My own sense is that if Elizabeth did stretch out her apron and protect you with a new rule, according to which no one here is allowed to respond unfavorably toward any substantive (i.e., non ad hom) post you make here, it wouldn’t make a scintilla of difference. You have nothing whatever to say, here or anywhere.
Well, that’s good news! I’m not at all surprised and am pleased. Too bad Dennett’s ‘evolutionist’ acid damaged your faith so badly, Lizzie.
So why do you think it is that the other theists on this site do not regularly find their posts in Guano, but your posts virtually monopolise the place?
And that every theist on the site has the rights to post OPs? And that precisely one theist and one atheist has been banned?
How can that evince a bias against theists? Where are the facts that support your contention?
Sometimes. Just as I’m sometimes annoyed at the venom you’re constantly spewing. But I don’t know of all the evil, and I likely don’t see all of your venom. Also, I recognize that my views are not the last word in evil identification.
Why do you ask?
No, they are pretty much the most low-life people on the planet.
See, this is another “aggressive theist” post IMO!
Dennett did not “damage my faith”. Dennett’s argument persuaded me that moral responsibility was possible without invoking libertarian free will.
That led me to reconsider some assumptions I’d made about dualism. As a result I could find no good arguments to support it.
And as theism, as conventionally defined, is a dualist proposition (in most theologies at least) I ceased to call myself a theist, or rather, discovered that to do generally misled people about my views.
I still have faith. Just not faith in the existence of a transcendent creator deity.
So why are you afraid to do nothing but spew venom? It certainly looks as though there’s nothing in your quiver but a bunch of stupid names that you like to call people.
What if ALL the non-theists here promised not to say a single discouraging word here about something of substance that you have to say? Would that do it?
All I ask is for people to try to post within the rules.
I will tell them (us), Gregory! Here:
OK? So now you’ve got both Lizzie’s rules and a request that non-theists be nicer. So….post something interesting. Some non-drivel.
There’s nothing ‘aggressive’ about it, Lizzie. What is wrong with your organic screws? Do you need an emotional cleansing?
Daniel Dennett is one of the so-called ‘four horsemen’ of the ‘new atheism’. You admitted here that in your 50s, reading his book made you lose your Christian faith. Those are both facts, without emotion or aggressiveness, are they not?
In what? Is this secular humanism? Is this like intending ‘spirit’ to mean ‘cheering for your team’?
I’ll come to Dennett’s atheist ‘persuasion’ another day, Lizzie. In the meantime, you might want to check out ‘concurrentism’, which throws a wrench in Dennettism. There are many monist theists around these days that it doesn’t seem you have yet to know much about.
Why not always? Isn’t evil ‘by nature’ something to be opposed? Do you embrace it instead?
Gregory/gregory is so edgy right now.
here’s some of his muddled thinking:
“TSZ is mainly a den for atheists”
TSZ is a (fairly) open forum to discuss origins, science, ethics and other interesting stuff.
It came about, in part, because of the heavily censored site “Uncommon descent”
Here ideas can compete openly
As a result, poor ideas and there peddlers shy away from this venue.
So if there are a disproportionate number of atheists here, it might be a byproduct of the above.
Lurking variables, multicollinearity and what not.
That avoided my simple, direct question. When will aggressive atheism finally be warned at TSZ? It would have been so easy to do with the “I am rude, mean and insulting” comment. But not a courageous moderator was present at TSZ. Too many atheists here.
Gregory, you are no doubt the poster child for goodness and purity, but you are intensely boring. That is really what everyone here finds offensive. You are a time waster.
You could be dazzling us with your brilliant ideas, but you choose to spend your time insulting everyone.
And I am aware that I am insulting you with this post. Can’t be helped.
Well, perhaps the take-home message here, Gregory, is that things seem a lot more aggressive to the aggressee than to the aggressor. Think about it.
In fact, we all should. There’s even good science behind it.
They are both facts, Gregory, but they are not related. I did not cease to believe i in the Christian God because Dennett is an atheist. As I said, it happened because I found his argument that moral responsibility was possible – indeed only coherent – without libertarian free will.
That started a cascade of reasoning, at the end of which I realised I no longer had a good case for dualism. Which rather kaiboshed my prior assumptions about what a God might be.
The argument could have been made by any competent philosopher, though one making that argument would probably be an atheist for the same reason I became one (to an approximation) – it’s where the argument tends to lead. Although, in retrospect, I first heard it from a Dominican Thomist scholar (it fits as long as you posit the resurrection of the body).
In humanity.
Yes, I know, see above. I’d happily call myself a monist theist, only most people seem to regard it as an oxymoron. So “atheist” is a better description. Pantheist, sort of does it. Humanist, I like.
When aggressive evangelizing and proselytizing is here – hopefully never. Why don’t you start a blog and show us how it’s done?
+1. More of this:
Less Design/design HPSS.
Never. Aggressive theism is not against the rules. That’s why my answer to you was on point.
What is against the rules is failing to assume that the other person is posting in good faith. You are allowed to be as aggressive as you like about a view that you oppose.
I am pretty aggressive myself about the view that gay people are “defective”. However, I must, to stay within the rules, assume that those who believe that do so honestly and sincerely and are not trying to wind me up.
causality inferences are always tricky
If boredom were the offense, TSZ almost died while Lizzie was away. Most TSZers have little creative and nothing important to say. You preach ‘a-t-h-e-i-s-m’, right, elder petrushka? This is deadly boring stuff and full of despair. In that worldview, life is IN THE LONG RUN meaningless. It is a dehumanising and heartless ideology, which a vast majority of the world rejects. This has nothing to do with me claiming ‘goodness & purity,’ which I haven’t. It has everything to do with you having nothing inspiring to offer either young people or old, only cold, ‘scientistic’ rationality, with despair and ruin as its eventual goal. Grandma/grandpa hugs and fluffy puppies don’t change that feature of your worldview.
So, I take it that means aggressive anti-atheism is also not against the rules?
Elizabeth,
My point as this site is open to all who want to defend (and challenge!) their viewpoints. That is (I think) what it’s for.
Gregory,
What constitutes “aggressive” in Gregoryland?
Count the logical fallacies. Pity the poor students who must listen to Gregory.
Well, like I said Lizzie, concurrentism vs. Dennettism. Check it. Apparently you’ve been stuck reading mostly atheists for too long.
Oh, yeah, and since you asked, yes, I’ve read most of Darwin’s OoS. But you didn’t answer if you’ve read Gilson’s “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again”. Will you answer?
If you think you need dualism to believe in God, then you are really quite lost, Lizzie. ‘Monism’ of course differs from ‘monotheism’.
You can only be a theist if you believe in God. If you don’t, you’re an atheist. If you’re also an anti-theist, then you are an apostate. You seem to want to believe and/or demonstrate all of these things at the same time, which just makes you sound confused.
It doesn’t ultimately matter what other people ‘seem to regard’ what you think, but rather what you actually think and believe. Christian monism sounds like a path you might consider.
I answered that in the rest of the post you clipped. I forgot about your working memory and executive function limitations.
I counted six. How did I do?
You really are a preacher wannabe, Gregory. I’m sure Lizzie is looking forward to having you save her soul. And we’ll all look on with consummate admiration!
I don’t preach anything. I am a non-believer. If someone opposes consensus science with bullshit from revealed religion, I will probably protest.
But I do not limit my skepticism to religion. I think most political philosophy is bullshit. I think Theodore Sturgeon said 95 percent of everything is bullshit.
I left religion because I found highly religious people to be touchy and easily offended by ideas. I am not in real life an assertive person. I do not like arguing with people about things they care about. Perhaps that is why I compensate online.
I figure if anyone is offended online, they have the option of moving to another more congenial site.
I have no idea what you mean by meaningless, heartless and dehumanizing. That certainly isn’t me. Do you have kids? Do you have anything to occupy your life besides books and arguing?