Resigning due to bias and tolerance of abuse

[stubbornone]

I would throw away my dignity and integrity if I start acting like a child and believing in superstitious religious nonsense. So for me, there is no 'choice'. I just don't believe because it makes no sense, it cannot be believed by a thinking person, so it's not really a choice to be made.

That is among the first comments I saw on this forum. Seems like a pretty reasonable challenge to step up to, and as the rules of the forum require logic and evidence in support, seems like a fairly open challenge.

The 'standard' of civility seems pretty clear there. Pointed comments are allowable, so the thin skinned need not apply.

Its not what happened, and I am getting the clear distinction that it isn't going to.

Here is why:

You were so arrogant and pompous that strutted in declaring the whole subject a giant waste of time unless someone gave you reason to believe otherwise. I accepted your challenge and gave some examples. But now you are shifting the goals posts. Now you demand a complete and full explanation of each.

Are you honestly curious about these examples or is this just a desperate act to save face? Keep in mind that entire books have been written on this subject.

So, you can call religion childish superstitious, but you cannot call atheism arrogant or pompous ... even when it is arrogant or pompous? Only the later is considered incivil?

That should probably have been my first clue, when two comments of equal valuation ... and only one side is actually faulted for it.

I was reassured when I had an atheist publicly demand accounting for ... a false accusation of deliberate misquoting, which, when examined, resulted in a clear case of ... accurate quoting. Should have leveled the playing field.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=160

That is unfortunately, pretty much the only interaction with an atheist where the matter was looked into and adjudicated according to the rules.

The opening line from Goat in this one is basically a slam on a faith, and sly claim of bigotry.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21702

And it becomes a full blown charge of bigotry within the first page and continues throughout the thread. A personal fixation that would eventually cause the thread to locked ... but, nothing to the atheists misbehaving.

Are you attempting to prove that atheists are bigots?

Rather than addressing anything that the man wrote, you point out that he is PROFESSIONALLY educated Catholic - who ostensibly has the PROFESSIONAL ability to point out the flaws in Dawkins thinking ... but, rather than address his point, you point out that he is Catholic.

Now, if that is not bigotry what the hell is?

BTW - Dawkins little book there is not science, and it is travesty to call it as such. He makes many claims throughout the book about 'genetic' causes for morality, but then, rather than site genetic evidence, he sites ... behavior - selected behavior and ignores the behavior in the animal kingdom that contradicts his thesis.

There is a reason Dawkins is a famous atheist rather than a famous scientist.

And nothing you write here makes it acceptable for that atheist to call Catholicism a form of child abuse ... much less call rejecting such silliness a form a bigotry toward atheists.

If anything, once again, we find that atheists are unfamilar with yet another source are left with the proverbial, "He's a Christian so we reject everything he says ... but everything and atheist says, not matter HOW OUTRAGEOUS, like tossing about child abuse, is kosher."

By all means, make an attempt to demonstrate bigotry TOWARD atheists rather than from atheists.

Apparently, its fine to publicly accuse Christians of being bigots ... repeatedly. But, if you call it bigotry when someone basically says, "Anything a Christian says in bogus." Er, that violates the forum rules.

Ignore the facts means, that a person is STUBBORN!
BTW, I think to leave the forum. Main reason are certain the user PASSENGER and STUBBORN. Against stupidity no herbal just has grown.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60

When giving solid reasons for something, that is considered just fine ... because, apparently, when blowing your stack ... its the person you blow your stack at who is at fault. Apparently, if you think gay marriage should NOT be bestowed because sex is not an immutable characteristic and support it ... and personal explosion from the atheist side of the house means ... get out of jail free?

From Post 193:

Once again, as you preach about ignorance, I will explain it once again.

It is my contention that the ignorant'll be the last one to know there they sit sufferin' from it.

I will not entertain any argument from you that fails to directly address the source I presented.

You had the temerity to claim I didn't support my claim.

When you can combine your temerity with the gonads to report my failure, I'll be happy to address such.

Until such time, it is my contention you're an accusatory coward.

REPORT ME YOU ACCUSATIONAL SONOFABISCUITEATER.

YOU COWER IN ACCUSATION AGAINST ME WHILE REFUSING TO ACT ON THAT ACCUSATION!

YOU DARE ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY, WHILE SHOWING YOU HAVE NONE OF IT YOURSELF! YOU SLIMY, SCUMBALL OF AN ACCUSTORY COWARD!

PUSH THE GOL-DANGED BUTTON, OR HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT YOU'RE TOO DANGED IGNORANT OR JUST TO DANGED STUPID TO FIND IT!

UNTIL YOU DO SO, I WILL DECLARE YOUR METHOD OF DEBATE IS A COWARDLY ACT OF AN IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BEYOND HIDING BEHIND YOUR OBVIOUS IGNORANCE, AND YOUR COWARDICE IN ADMITTING THERE YOU SIT WITH A CASE OF IT!

I will NOT have you repeatedly accuse me of failure to support my claims, when it is obvious to all by now that YOU HAVE FAILED TO FIND THE ONE DANGED BUTTON THAT MIGHT EVER POSSIBLY HELP YOUR CASE.


PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

You cowardly, accusational son of a motherless goat.

Congrats Joey, for proving that taking issue with the dumping of a source without comment or apparently even relevance to the claims on making ... results in a mental melt down?

Its clear that attempting to engage you civilly is simply not possible. In addition to reporting the post, I would also like to congratulate you on being the first person to earn the coveted ignore feature.

It certainly seems to be the case there, as this poster was reported repeatedly as his temper tantrum built up ... along with, once again, a provably false claim being repeatedly claimed.

As we see with the first case, a simple intervention could have solved it. Instead ... well, the problem is clearly deciding AFTER that little blow up ... from a poster who is on probation mind you, is telling them that they are ignored?

If Stubborn claims an "agnostic-atheist" by definition must positively assert there's no god one more time, he's going on ignore along with "Truth101" because it's just pointless to continue engaging such intellectual dishonesty and incoherence.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ore#530085

So, apparently, not only deliberately misquoting someone, as in claiming agnostic atheism, as opposed to atheism, and the sectionalizing into strong, weak, etc. is illogical - and supported as per forum rules mind you, but ... an atheist can make comments about ignore just fine and dandy.

stubbornone wrote:

#1 - you can use google, and that question has already been answered and sources have been provided for you. You are clearly choosing to ignore them.

#2 - you have to deal with the evidence that is there, not ask for additional sources. Your problem set is not absurdity and continuing to raise standards to the point that antiquity can never reach it. It is examining what is there:

And, to above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliM ... ver&dq=jes... outside the new testament&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CwXeUMjVJ6SQiAK0q4CQCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA


Moderator Comment

I've said this before, but telling someone to go google the answer themselves is not an appropriate response. Pointing to a specific book for them to read is better, but still not sufficient. Think of it as writing a paper to support your thesis. The paper would have to contain specific points to back up your thesis. The paper should not simply say, "here's a list of google search results and here's a whole book on the topic."

Please review the Rules.

Now, that was the result of yet another deliberate false accusation. When a poster claims that a single source listing the dates of publication of something, thousands of more sites that document the same thing, and published books with bibliographies that establish first century dating of something ... I guess said atheist, upon ONLY doing the second for the third time - and not the first, is a victim of someone making unsupported claims?

And what happens when you point it out to the moderator? Nothing. I guess being most improved means .... what exactly? You learn to lie to moderators and drag them in under false pretenses? And when the evidence is provided of just that?

In fact, that particular atheist was found to be directly plagiarizing sources and passing them off as his own, but ... when you write that the results of random google searches without comment are unhelpful ... you are being uncivil?

@ Bust Nak

I put Stubbornone on ignore due to obvious reason so I won't see any of his posts and also won't be answering any.

But, being the most improved debater means ... what exactly? So, atheists can publicly state that they are ignoring someone ... just for GP. If someone blows their mind ... well, then saying, "I want nothing to do with that!" is ... uncivil?

This however is the final straw:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22005

I would challenge anyone to go through those two linked pages and find evidence that Princess there, which is apparently and insult that excuses anyone from blowing their mind, and allows several pointed barbs, at multiple posters, several accusations of lying, vacuous claims of evidence, etc. etc. etc.

Its true, I did, in call her Princess ... in the face of all she did.

And the result? Yep, its the Christian once again found at fault for another exploding atheist who is given a get out of jail free card. Just blame someone for your emotional outburst, which you apparently had on ignore, because they will not accept your silly definition of agnostic atheism??

I might find that acceptable, except that the evidence of problem is overwhelmingly obvious.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/statistics.php

According to the forum statistics, over HALF the forum users are atheist, even though they make up about 10% of the general population.

Its pretty clear that atheists, with half the population and AT LEAST half the violations - should we take the time to notice them anyway ... make up ..

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

Well, almost everyone on the list there is Christian.

In fact, in less than two months I have been full out attacked now on no less than six occasions. In attempting to adjust to the rules, and defend myself from those attacks ...

I see me on the probation list for calling a haughty emotional atheist in thr process of smear campaign, princess ... and the six atheists who smeared me or otherwise attacked me?

Right ... not a one.

Only one of the lot is even on the list, and he was on it before I arrived ... and before he blew his stack without a single consequence, which is apparently caused by me stating after the assault that I am 'ignoring' the poster.

In short, we are supposed to have a civil forum here, but what we have is a forum where you can insult the intelligence of anyone religious, is just a discussion point mind you, but literally anything pointed in the other direction is considered uncivil (even when atheists are saying the same thing in what appears to be a deliberate baiting campaign), where posters attempting to actually discuss are trapped between conflicting guidance to be hard on debates (you can direct comments at the argument mind you), but anything 'too' hard can be seen as uncivil ... and the subjective standards clearly on display above and the resulting inequity in discipline are telling.

Attacked by six posters ... none held accountable.


I stated this when this process first started, if the mods did not want me on the forum, all they had to do was ask and I would leave.

Whatever this has been, its clearly not debate, and I am not going to attempt to argue with mods who clearly don't care.

On a level playing field, God can easily be defended. On a field were emotional charges and exploding tempers result in nothing .... where actions are taken and stack up even when they are wrong?

Its not possible to defend God here, and that just might be why you have so many atheists running here.

This would have been easier if, when I asked, a few of the mods would have simply answered honestly.

[otseng]

Its not what happened, and I am getting the clear distinction that it isn't going to.

Here is why:

You were so arrogant and pompous that strutted in declaring the whole subject a giant waste of time unless someone gave you reason to believe otherwise. I accepted your challenge and gave some examples. But now you are shifting the goals posts. Now you demand a complete and full explanation of each.

Are you honestly curious about these examples or is this just a desperate act to save face? Keep in mind that entire books have been written on this subject.

It seems like you are implying that the moderators ignore such comments. However, this was responded to here.

I was reassured when I had an atheist publicly demand accounting for ... a false accusation of deliberate misquoting, which, when examined, resulted in a clear case of ... accurate quoting. Should have leveled the playing field.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=160

I'll let readers decide for themselves if these posts here is an example of a level field or not.

The opening line from Goat in this one is basically a slam on a faith, and sly claim of bigotry.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21702

And it becomes a full blown charge of bigotry within the first page and continues throughout the thread. A personal fixation that would eventually cause the thread to locked ... but, nothing to the atheists misbehaving.

Actually, it was you that brought in the term bigotry here. I don't even see an implication in the OP of bigotry.

Apparently, its fine to publicly accuse Christians of being bigots ... repeatedly.

You'll need to show where this is the case. Calling anyone bigots is not allowed, even if it is directed at a poster who is Christian.

Ignore the facts means, that a person is STUBBORN!
BTW, I think to leave the forum. Main reason are certain the user PASSENGER and STUBBORN. Against stupidity no herbal just has grown.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60

This post was never reported. If a post does not get reported, more than likely a moderator will never notice it.

As we see with the first case, a simple intervention could have solved it. Instead ... well, the problem is clearly deciding AFTER that little blow up ... from a poster who is on probation mind you, is telling them that they are ignored?

It's not the responsibility of the mod team to intervene before rules are violated. In this case, a moderator warning to that post was issued here.

And what happens when you point it out to the moderator? Nothing. I guess being most improved means .... what exactly? You learn to lie to moderators and drag them in under false pretenses? And when the evidence is provided of just that?

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing" since we had extensive back and forth on this via PM. Just because a moderator does not do what you expect them to do does not mean a moderator has done nothing.

And again, as I pointed out, it was a comment, not a warning.

This however is the final straw:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22005

I would challenge anyone to go through those two linked pages and find evidence that Princess there, which is apparently and insult that excuses anyone from blowing their mind, and allows several pointed barbs, at multiple posters, several accusations of lying, vacuous claims of evidence, etc. etc. etc.

Those two threads are good examples of uncivil behavior by multiple parties. The best recourse that we thought should be taken was to close those threads.

Its pretty clear that atheists, with half the population and AT LEAST half the violations - should we take the time to notice them anyway ... make up ..

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

Well, almost everyone on the list there is Christian.

If Christians would be civil, there wouldn't be so many on that list.

I see me on the probation list for calling a haughty emotional atheist in thr process of smear campaign, princess ... and the six atheists who smeared me or otherwise attacked me?

Those that violated the rules (that we knew about) were either given a comment or a warning. And when you violated the rules, we did the same. But, I guess somehow you think you should be above the rules and only others should be held to the rules.

You have been given numerous comments and warnings. We do not jump straight to probation without giving warnings, and plenty have been given to you.

I stated this when this process first started, if the mods did not want me on the forum, all they had to do was ask and I would leave.

And I stated to you that all I ask is for you to follow the rules and be civil. If you cannot do this, then yes, please leave.

Whatever this has been, its clearly not debate, and I am not going to attempt to argue with mods who clearly don't care.

We have engaged in extensive PMs to each other. What I care about is enforcing the rules.

On a field were emotional charges and exploding tempers result in nothing .... where actions are taken and stack up even when they are wrong?

I don't recall anytime where exploding tempers resulting in rule violations were not acted upon.

Its not possible to defend God here, and that just might be why you have so many atheists running here.

If Christians think they are above the rules, then it is not possible for them to last long here.

This would have been easier if, when I asked, a few of the mods would have simply answered honestly.

I already said this to you many times, what I ask is for you to follow the rules. Don't justify your violations by pointing to others violating the rules. If you obey the rules, there is no need for us to issue you any comments or warnings.

[stubbornone]

Its not what happened, and I am getting the clear distinction that it isn't going to.

Here is why:

You were so arrogant and pompous that strutted in declaring the whole subject a giant waste of time unless someone gave you reason to believe otherwise. I accepted your challenge and gave some examples. But now you are shifting the goals posts. Now you demand a complete and full explanation of each.

Are you honestly curious about these examples or is this just a desperate act to save face? Keep in mind that entire books have been written on this subject.

It seems like you are implying that the moderators ignore such comments. However, this was responded to here.

Yes O, I quote in the OP, its the comment before that one made by an atheist that is skipped, and sort of forms the basis of my claim of bias.

Christian = dumb = fine.

Atheists = arrogant = well someone just made birds stop flying in mid air!

I was reassured when I had an atheist publicly demand accounting for ... a false accusation of deliberate misquoting, which, when examined, resulted in a clear case of ... accurate quoting. Should have leveled the playing field.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=160

I'll let readers decide for themselves if these posts here is an example of a level field or not.

The opening line from Goat in this one is basically a slam on a faith, and sly claim of bigotry.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21702

And it becomes a full blown charge of bigotry within the first page and continues throughout the thread. A personal fixation that would eventually cause the thread to locked ... but, nothing to the atheists misbehaving.

Actually, it was you that brought in the term bigotry here. I don't even see an implication in the OP of bigotry.

Apparently, its fine to publicly accuse Christians of being bigots ... repeatedly.

You'll need to show where this is the case. Calling anyone bigots is not allowed, even if it is directed at a poster who is Christian.

Ignore the facts means, that a person is STUBBORN!
BTW, I think to leave the forum. Main reason are certain the user PASSENGER and STUBBORN. Against stupidity no herbal just has grown.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60

This post was never reported. If a post does not get reported, more than likely a moderator will never notice it.

As we see with the first case, a simple intervention could have solved it. Instead ... well, the problem is clearly deciding AFTER that little blow up ... from a poster who is on probation mind you, is telling them that they are ignored?

It's not the responsibility of the mod team to intervene before rules are violated. In this case, a moderator warning to that post was issued here.

And what happens when you point it out to the moderator? Nothing. I guess being most improved means .... what exactly? You learn to lie to moderators and drag them in under false pretenses? And when the evidence is provided of just that?

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing" since we had extensive back and forth on this via PM. Just because a moderator does not do what you expect them to do does not mean a moderator has done nothing.

And again, as I pointed out, it was a comment, not a warning.

This however is the final straw:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=60

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22005

I would challenge anyone to go through those two linked pages and find evidence that Princess there, which is apparently and insult that excuses anyone from blowing their mind, and allows several pointed barbs, at multiple posters, several accusations of lying, vacuous claims of evidence, etc. etc. etc.

Those two threads are good examples of uncivil behavior by multiple parties. The best recourse that we thought should be taken was to close those threads.

Its pretty clear that atheists, with half the population and AT LEAST half the violations - should we take the time to notice them anyway ... make up ..

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

Well, almost everyone on the list there is Christian.

If Christians would be civil, there wouldn't be so many on that list.

I see me on the probation list for calling a haughty emotional atheist in thr process of smear campaign, princess ... and the six atheists who smeared me or otherwise attacked me?

Those that violated the rules (that we knew about) were either given a comment or a warning. And when you violated the rules, we did the same. But, I guess somehow you think you should be above the rules and only others should be held to the rules.

You have been given numerous comments and warnings. We do not jump straight to probation without giving warnings, and plenty have been given to you.

I stated this when this process first started, if the mods did not want me on the forum, all they had to do was ask and I would leave.

And I stated to you that all I ask is for you to follow the rules and be civil. If you cannot do this, then yes, please leave.

Whatever this has been, its clearly not debate, and I am not going to attempt to argue with mods who clearly don't care.

We have engaged in extensive PMs to each other. What I care about is enforcing the rules.

On a field were emotional charges and exploding tempers result in nothing .... where actions are taken and stack up even when they are wrong?

I don't recall anytime where exploding tempers resulting in rule violations were not acted upon.

Its not possible to defend God here, and that just might be why you have so many atheists running here.

If Christians think they are above the rules, then it is not possible for them to last long here.

This would have been easier if, when I asked, a few of the mods would have simply answered honestly.

I already said this to you many times, what I ask is for you to follow the rules. Don't justify your violations by pointing to others violating the rules. If you obey the rules, there is no need for us to issue you any comments or warnings.

No O, we have engaged in a series of extensive explanations from me, and a bunch of one liners from you. In fact, this is perhaps the second actual explanation I have gotten from you.

Well, I am glad you dimissed my rebuttal with a one liner claiming you know the rules.

Responses like that are going to get you nowhere. If you cannot even address me civilly, then do not expect your request for appeals to even be considered.

Gee, there is a wonderful explanation as to why Christians MUST accept the definition of agnostic atheism, even though atheists don't have to accept the Bible.

And clearly, this proof is just WAY out of lines.

The only way an atheist can arrive at the conclusion that no evidence is required for their position is by completely ignoring the rules of logic and context.

We often take the atheists claim of rationality for granted, incorrectly, and assume that atheists are familiar enough with logic that their statements will not be deliberately illogical. Yet the constant demand for proof, coupled with the failure to lay out any of their own – despite the ‘logic’ of their claim is a continuous demonstration of the opposite of the supposed claim to rationality.


Here is why.

First, there is knowing what a logical argument is:

"One must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false)."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

For more, see:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/logic.html

The specific of the burden of proof lies in a portion of what is often highlighted by atheists but, equally often, completely ignored.

As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Yes, it is indeed true that this statement is a fallacy.

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

It is why most logical Christians could more accurately be quoted as saying:

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He MIGHT."

It is also why we list things like miracles, answered prayers, calling, and strong, patterns in the universe that indicate purpose rather than accident, and other circumstantial evidence to back up the claim as required by the burden of proof. We also acknowledge that the belief in God is not totally logical, that is requires faith - an exception required by the dictates of logic.

We are also aware of something called the middle ground fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...le-ground.html

It is listed on the same source, and applies directly to the 'in most cases' so often ignored by atheists who offer the burden of proof exemption to their claim.

It is best explained here:

"For example, in the philosophical debate between Theism and Atheism (to some, Strong atheism), theism posits that the nonexistence of God has not been demonstrated and therefore God must exist. This is a burden of proof fallacy. Atheism in turn points out this fallacy and claims that its position is therefore stronger. This is a fallacious defense. In actuality, both positions have a burden of proof, since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this scenario."

http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/...l_fallacy).htm

Even honest atheists acknowledge this burden of proof.

"The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof� is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support� — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof."

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgode...denofproof.htm

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.�
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.�

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

Funny that I have long stated that conclusion regarding logic and the debate over God.

And as you can clearly see, based upon the full application of the rules of logic, rather then partical and deliberately non-contextual application thereof, the burden of proof is still a requirement for those claiming that God does not exist.

I hope that explanation is detailed enough to finally bury that pernicious atheist claim.

WHAT A DEMONSTRATED LACK OF CIVILITY!!!

And some others:

Not sure what you're asking here.

Regarding this issue, I believe no warning has ever been issued to you about this. They have only been comments. The issue of substantiating claims is not rigorously enforced as compared to civility.

Except there it is the OP. Quoted for you directly. Not rigorously enforced but we have Goat attempting to use that exact rule as a weapon, who cares?

That is exactly what I did - its a categorized list of sources that deal with the evidential lay out for a historical Jesus.

Where did you do this?

So, there is the pattern, a problem is brought to you, as per the forum rules, to seek clarification, and the evidence given you directing you to the problem and what is happening and ... a vacuous one liner, and everything I wrote attempting to explain reduced to a one liner.

You claim civility is prime ... I claim I have been overtly attacked and been dished out horrifically uncivil treatment, and subjected to deliberate double standards from a so called fellow Christian.

I am done debating, its simply not possible here, and the legions of banned Christians can testify to the same thing.

Of course, Star, who apparently violated every rule I got a warning on these two threads alone:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... dc55721dd6

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... dc55721dd6

Of course the problem is, even though we have MORE rule violation in less time, its that Christians are not being civil? Its not a double standard from O that is the problem ... because he says so?

Bye forum. Enjoy a forum where is quite civil to call someone brain dead based solely on their faith, which is of course quite civil, but dismissing those statements as arrogant is just a Christian problem with a lack of civility.

No point aggravating myself any further with such obtuse, deliberate double standards.

Clearly, the real problem here is that its ONLY Christians who are rude? So sayeth the great O, and so I vote with my feet. I am sure I will not be the last. [/b]

[stubbornone]

One final point, that is that 'I'apparently brought the term 'bigotry' to this forum:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21702

Please check the dates on that with your allegation above, and you will see that there I was being called a bigot for a week straight in that thread alone by several atheists, and finally, after responding to that and the charge that, "All you evidence is Christian apologists - i.e. if its from a Christian website, it automatically bogus," that looks a LOT more like a clear cut case of bigotry from someone hurling the accusation.

Despite giving this to the moderator, who responded with a one liner, thanks, I still , weeks later and despite repeatedly presenting the evidence, have a moderator not only falsely accusing me of dragging in a derogatory practice, but willfully ignoring evidence that proves it false.

A clearer cut case I cannot provide evidence for:

#1 - evidence of repeatedly being called a bigot.

#2 - Responding to a clear cut case of prejudice with the SAME apparently accepted terminology ... WHOA, violated the civility rules ... happen to be Christian.

#3 - Present evidence using the PM function of exactly that.

#4 - Still accused of 'dragging it in' rather than responding to it.

#5 - Used as a basis for further discipline and accusations.

#6 - Publicly documented in the OP.

#7 - Charged falsely yet again.

#8 - Bye forum!!!

If anyone needs a better demonstration of dysfunction, good luck. I personally am going to hike up a mountain with my dog.

[otseng]

One final point, that is that 'I'apparently brought the term 'bigotry' to this forum:

Believe me, the word bigot has been used many times by others before you. Why would I attribute you as the origin of it on this forum? What I was referring to was your charge that goat had a "sly claim of bigotry" in this thread. It was you that introduced the term bigot in that thread, not goat.

[stubbornone]

One final point, that is that 'I'apparently brought the term 'bigotry' to this forum:

Believe me, the word bigot has been used many times by others before you. Why would I attribute you as the origin of it on this forum? What I was referring to was your charge that goat had a "sly claim of bigotry" in this thread. It was you that introduced the term bigot in that thread, not goat.

Agh, I see ... if it had been in A DIFFERENT thread, then its OK to sling the term bigot completely randomly based on nothing more the criticism of ... resigning fro West Point because you are a bigot, or ... because you accurately quote someone and they blow a gasket ... THEN its OK to hurl to accusations of bigotry.

BUT ... and here's the kicker, after a week of being called prejudicial bigot in multiple threads, but posters who CLEARLY KNOW THE RULES BETTER THE NEW GUYS, the correct action to take is to IGNORE the older posters doing it an issue a warning ... ONLY to the Christian.

And then repeatedly demand 'Where? Gee, I sure don't see it!"

Nah there is no no way that a couple of atheists were simply flame baiting, hurling accusations of bigotry, and then turning around and running of to Mighty O when someone applied THEIR standards to THEIR position.

No, no ... for the week that it was happening prior to that with absolutely nothing in terms of moderation, it ONLY became wrong when I responded in kind.

Indeed, it just more, when discipline is a problem, its clearly ONLY because Christians on this forum do not know how to be civil.

Senior forum members though it was just fine and dandy, you went after the new Christian ... again.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... m.php?f=23

Of course, the fact that what was going on was brought to your attention, now we'll play lawyer:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=190

Now, lets see who actually drug in the phrase bigot first? Which of course, in speaking against a highly generalized methodology (perhaps a valid point), one that also establishes a standard .... suddenly any logical statement made by a Christian ... is horribly biased and can be dismissed without er ... prejudice ... except it is prejudice isn't it?

And of course, it was perfectly fine when tossed about on several other threads and indeed prior to my comment, but it was wrong ONLY when the ... Christian did it.

In short O, you are provably wrong on all counts, and no matter how many times I show you the actual context of what was going on, you willfully ignore it and avoid even basic fact checking.

Its a pride problem.

You are simply, totally wrong. And rather than acknowledge it, you have doubled down and continue to issue blatantly double standards forms of discipline ...

Attacked by six atheists, no civility problem ... punish the Christians ... again.

Gotcha O. Its your forum.

All us stupid Christians who clearly have no idea what the heck we are talking about should be ignored ... as should our evidence, which, even weeks ago, was pointedly dismissed as horrifically biased anyway. Guess I should have taken the clue.

The mountain was great BTW, a little humid though ...

[otseng]

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and biased (as a matter of fact, I don't even claim to be unbiased). But, I'm not the only moderator here. There are a group of us moderating this forum. Collectively, we attempt to balance each other out and there is no conspiracy to only discipline and banish Christians. What we do is simply to apply the rules to everybody, no matter what they believe.

You claim that we ignore violations made by atheists. The only example you've demonstrated so far is a post that was not even reported. Of course, those types of posts will not be acted on. And where has anyone called someone a bigot and we have not acted on it?

Also, let me address your charge earlier of me making one-liners. You seem to suggest that I am violating the rules with my responses to you. First, this rule applies only to the debate subforums. Second, it only applies to a post that only has a single line response in it. Third, it has to be judged to not add any value to the discussions. Some comments can have only have one line in it, but could add value to the discussion. My responses to you do not meet these three conditions.

Let me ask you some questions. Have you or have you not violated the rules? Do you think it is unjustified for you to be on probation? Do you think you are above the rules?

[Lux]

Stubbornone,

Personally, I don't see a pattern of unfairness here. At any given time since I've been in the forum there has been a number of active users, usually new-ish, who break the rules far more than average and eventually end up on probation or banned. Sometimes most of those users are non-theists, at times it seems we have a higher influx of religious rule-breakers. If you really think we sanction Christians more often than others, it might be that at this particular time we have more Christians who are breaking the rules. We just don't keep a statistical analysis of the convictions of the people we give warnings to. Break a rule, get a warning; It's simply that. We can't very well say "This user called the other a few names, but he's a Christian and we've already sanctioned 5 Christians this week, so we'll let it go."

That being said, if you really and truly don't see how posts such as these...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 095#517095

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 106#518106

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 958#521958

landed you on probation, then perhaps our rules are not written clearly enough. Notice how those come from three different moderators.

[stubbornone]

It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and biased (as a matter of fact, I don't even claim to be unbiased). But, I'm not the only moderator here. There are a group of us moderating this forum. Collectively, we attempt to balance each other out and there is no conspiracy to only discipline and banish Christians. What we do is simply to apply the rules to everybody, no matter what they believe.

You claim that we ignore violations made by atheists. The only example you've demonstrated so far is a post that was not even reported. Of course, those types of posts will not be acted on. And where has anyone called someone a bigot and we have not acted on it?

Also, let me address your charge earlier of me making one-liners. You seem to suggest that I am violating the rules with my responses to you. First, this rule applies only to the debate subforums. Second, it only applies to a post that only has a single line response in it. Third, it has to be judged to not add any value to the discussions. Some comments can have only have one line in it, but could add value to the discussion. My responses to you do not meet these three conditions.

Let me ask you some questions. Have you or have you not violated the rules? Do you think it is unjustified for you to be on probation? Do you think you are above the rules?

Let me make this clear, I have no problem with the rules of the forum.

Here is what I do have a problem with:

#1 - Clear double standards for civility. You can continuously insinuate that Christians are dumb, etc., BUT, we have a rotating standard for civility when it comes to atheism, implying that atheism is arrogant is deemed uncivil.

In short, sharp, often totally emotional and utterly illogical criticism of Christianity is considered a Go (no problem), its the reverse where I have repeatedly run into issues with flagrant false reporting and off the cuff moderation that deems sharp criticism of atheism as offensive and intolerable in a debate forum.

By your own records, the result is clear, and as every single one of them results from the same moderator ... there you go.

#2 - Overt tolerance of flame bait and debate by mod. Once again, I will use Goat as a perfect example. Not only is he listed above repeatedly tossing out claims of bigotry and prejudice, but as soon as he sees one come back ... off to the mods he goes. And the mods underwrite it.

Now, no matter what is presented, either its not presented correctly, its missing enough detail, or you are too dumb to understand what you put on the forum ... all it clearly aimed at reporting to the mods a 'failure to support a claim.'

Of course, its uncivil after 20 odd attempts to use a bit of sarcasm ... which is not against the forum rules, but deemed uncivil anyway ... flame bait and false accusing people of evidential issues just so you can run off to the mods and report someone is deemed ... acceptable and even rewarded ... as has provably happened TWICE with just one poster.

So this forum actively encourages atheists to ply on moderation biases to ban one Christian after another - a fact proved by this forum's own statistics.

#3 - When pointing out context and attempting to educate the moderator intervening, posters are simply and utterly ignored. Apparently, just by dint of faith alone, a poster apparently has no ability to understand logic much less apply it in a manner that will identify problems. My PM box is filled with attempts to provide evidence of what is going on and it being pointedly ignored.

Indeed, its deemed uncivil to disagree with an off the cuff assessment and say, "Whoa, you are applying this standard to the newbie, but you have several long standing posters not only violating the same standard, but doing it more often and clearly as part of a pattern of flame bait."

The moderator response has been essentially a polite version of, "You are too stupid to know what you are talking about."

When it does rise up to the point where an actual discussion takes place, as we see above, we see a series of false allegations (like I am the one that drug allegations of bigotry into a thread) meant to justify any decision rather than examine the evidence at hand and arrive at a conclusion.

#4 - Not just tolerating but encouraging emotional abuse. Six times in less than two months - six times - I have had atheists on this forum absolutely lose their minds. In each case, some trivial rule violation has been used as a 'countering balance' to somehow justify a poster losing their mind ... a clear violation of civility and standards of logic.

The final straw was Star, who demanded that I accept her silly definition of agnostic atheist because it was posted on the internet ... which means that anything posted on the internet by an atheist is automatically held to the standard of non-denomination gospel. Efforts to rebut and explain were ignored by increasingly shrill and emotional taunts, emotionally 'ignoring' posters to attempt to strike out at them personally, name dropping, insults, and then straight up attacks. (Same thing was done to truth).

A pretty clear cut case of incivility. BUT, star claimed that my refusal to accept agnostic atheism as gospel ... because it is on the internet, coupled with her open claims that we were a bunch of irrational myth believers with no good reason to believe in God, means she is being false accused of thinking there is no God ... because that would lead to a burden of proof ... so lash out.


So what is the moderator response? Go through weeks worth of writing and claim:

a. Instead of allowing the debate to continue within the guidelines of the forum, we'll intervene and declare the atheist claim valid without support and a binding rule. No atheist will EVER have to support anything, no matter how rude, dismissive, or illogical, because, magically, they are agnostic atheists who don;t know enough to even form an opinion ... but are nevertheless certain enough to routinely tell you want an uneducated idiot you are ... and its now YOUR burden to prove to some nebulous and ill defined standard to individual atheist posters that your burden of proof has been met ... a perfect set up from an argument from absurdity ... made writ by an off the cuff intervention in a debate rather than as a rule enforcement.

b. After explosion, Gee, this Christian, who write over 90% of his stuff civilly and logically, is actually incapable of civility!!!

c. Lets find some very borderline things, not even aimed at star ... and use THOSE as a basis of disciplining the poster ... Star's emotionalism and abuse were fully underwritten by the DELIBERATE finding of minutia as an excuse.

In short, to be a Christian here on this forum requires PERFECT civility, which we are frankly never treated to on the forum, constant snide insinuations and outright statements of your stupidity, atheists who avoid debate and attempt to ensnare you with minor rule violations that they themselves routinely break, and when that fails ... you will be overtly attacked.

And if you raise your hand and say, "Whoa, can we get a level playing field here!"

You are deemed uncivil, ignored, and eventually forced of the forum.

On a level, logical playing field I have no problem support God. I have been to multiple countries, worked with and shared views on faith with Buddhist monks in Asian mountain ranges and worked both side so the Israeli Palestinian issue ... and never been called dumb just because I was Christian nor would ANYONE consider such blatant flippancy to be logical rather than simple incivility ... which this forum claims to eschew.

And yet that seems to the only acceptable line on this debate forum, to explain how stupid Christians are ... literally every stand I have taken in reverse to expose such notions as illogical and utterly without merit has been deemed uncivil.

Worse, Its been publicly claimed that Christians alone are the sources of incivility, and a quick glance at any thread will rapidly reveal the bias of such notions ... a bias that is clearly resulting in lop sided discipline ... which is in turn producing lopsided membership ... which is turn leading to increasingly poor quality debate wherein Christians, the uncivil ones, are subjected to more taunts then debate and then reported to a moderation team whose bias facilitates that frivolous and often personal reporting.

Because we all know that the best way to win a debate with someone who can ripe your argument apart is to falsely accuse the person until someone makes him go away? No need to strengthen your case or do your homework when all you have to do is make continual claims that a Christian on an ... er, Christian, debate forum is a bigot who is illogical and continue that false parade of accusation indefinitely - with ZERO consequence.

Hell, you might even get a MOST improved debater award for it!

[stubbornone]

Stubbornone,

Personally, I don't see a pattern of unfairness here. At any given time since I've been in the forum there has been a number of active users, usually new-ish, who break the rules far more than average and eventually end up on probation or banned. Sometimes most of those users are non-theists, at times it seems we have a higher influx of religious rule-breakers. If you really think we sanction Christians more often than others, it might be that at this particular time we have more Christians who are breaking the rules. We just don't keep a statistical analysis of the convictions of the people we give warnings to. Break a rule, get a warning; It's simply that. We can't very well say "This user called the other a few names, but he's a Christian and we've already sanctioned 5 Christians this week, so we'll let it go."

That being said, if you really and truly don't see how posts such as these...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 095#517095

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 106#518106

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 958#521958

landed you on probation, then perhaps our rules are not written clearly enough. Notice how those come from three different moderators.

Notice how they are all minor? How all those standards are being violated by multiple posters? Notice that some aren't even violations ... like sarcasm?

Excessive sarcasm I have been warned about, but a poster finding continual and utterly illogical reasons to ignore everything so he can hold his own opinions?

Nah, its EXCESSIVE sarcasm to say, You know, if all you are going to do is use a rotating standard to deny anything I claim so you can hold your own opinion, you might try: www.agreewithanythingisay.com - which isn't even a real website ... follwed by, OR you can use logic to make a claim and support in a way that is convincing?

Clearly any sarcasm from a Christian is automatically excessive and uncivil, the claims of, "Gee you apparently don't even know what numbers mean!" Fine.

Repeatedly making claims of evidence so you can report a poster for 'failing to support his claims' also deemed civil and relevant to the debate?

The final warning:

Two of them are for using the a shortened phrase for pointedly disagreeing with the assessment of someone, which is apparently uncivil and need a final warning for a first time notification? Clearly I have continued to use the phrase?

Declaring a the automatic dismissal of anything Christian bigoted ... uncivil. The 20 or so odd previous uses of the term, both in that thread and others, by atheists, including personal charges of, "YOU are a bigot," and, "Your argumentation is clearly bigoted," Are fine.

But you don;t see that double standard, eh? Its ONLY the return shot that needs it? The long standing posters engaged in the behavior need nothing?

And the simple fact of the matter, right here in this thread, using only a click on a link, you can clearly see the evidence of just that - flame bait. But you examined ONLY what the mods presented about me ... which goes right back to the point of moderators ignoring context and underwriting poor behavior.

The subsequent violations are not even violations in many cases ... its a warning to avoid getting close to the line - the phrase no friggin' duh, which is not a swear word, and comes when a poster repeatedly ... agrees with you, and blows you off, requiring a more .... clear presentation of the point.

Its also the result of another posters explosion is it not? Hence the same fishing expedition for minor violations.

Yep, I did call Star princess ... while she was overtly insulting me and truth ... clearly that is the sole mark of destabilization of the entire forum. Hurled insults and personal attacks ... well, you just have to take them ... repeatedly.

The last one already addressed, you are clearly NOT allowed to use ANY amount of sarcasm is response to a poster who is clearly attempting to flame bait you ... just report it .. and, wait, I did didn't I.

So when brought to moderator attention, have any of your actually examined the evidence that I have presented PROVING the problem, or are you still attempting to justify minor violations as necessary while ignoring major violations? Hence the claim of bias?

In short, the goal seems to justify moderator decisions, not ensure that moderation decisions are made correctly. And if you disagree, well, then you are uncivil.

Hence, away we go.