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]

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.

I'm glad you have no problems with the rules, but you didn't answer my questions.

You can continuously insinuate that Christians are dumb.

The bottom line accusation that you're making is that the moderating team is biased. And I would disagree.

Here I think is the problem. Most threads have numerous non-Christians in them versus a few Christians. For example, suppose one thread has 6 non-Christians in it and only one Christian in it. The Christian would in effect be debating against 6 non-Christians. If uncivil exchanges take place among all, there would be 6 hits against the Christian and 1 hit against each non-Christian. The non-Christian group can get away with the attacks, but the Christian cannot. He would have to be 6 times as more civil in order to not get censured. So, with this example, sure, one can argue that it is not a level playing field. But, it is a level playing field in that the rules are applied equally to all.

You say that it's easy to defend Christianity. I believe so too. But I also believe it should be done in a civil fashion. And frankly, the tone of many of your posts are uncivil. Practically all your conversations with me publicly and privately have no sense of respect. If you make this one change of being civil and respectful, you will do much better here. And you can then have a good chance of getting the most improved award.