Some Difficulties

[Jagella]

I have lately encountered at least two issues in this forum I find to be problematical.

The first issue I have is with my being told that I cannot use an acronym that I call "TIMITS." In case you don't know, TIMITS stands for The Invisible Man In The Sky. I have explained in the apologetics subforum exactly why I use that acronym for any god people might believe in but especially the Bible god. I even cited Bible passages to demonstrate how each of the traits of TIMITS appear in the Bible. I think I should be permitted to use this term.

The second issue is my being told by a moderator that I need to post a question for debate in my OPs. But I did post a question for debate in that OP, and I copied and pasted it into another post to prove it. Moderators should have good reading comprehension.

Finally, that same moderator told me my OP "rambled." I strongly disagree that it rambled. I take pride in all of my posts, and I work hard to make them as clear, informative, logical and relevant as I can. That OP was no exception.

So I'm still hoping that this forum is different from the other forums I've dealt with. I've been in some real zoos in which the biggest trolls are the moderators. Moderators should fairly and intelligently deal with members allowing them to post their opinions on the subject matter.

[Jagella]

I'm totally blown away that somehow you have decided that all God models fall under the jurisdiction of your acronym...

You can have whatever model of any god you want, obviously, but if you want a Bible-based model of the Bible god, then TIMITS I think is the most accurate and revealing model. If you deny TIMITS, then you must deny much of the Bible.

and that people should be forced to debate using this term because you explained it......

Oh no. Use whatever name for the Bible god you want, and allow me to use whatever name I want to use. As far as "force" is concerned, I should point out that it was I who was forced not to use the term I wanted to use. If you object to such "force," then you should defend my freedom to express my own ideas.

As stated in the op by Jagella.
"I have explained in the apologetics subforum exactly why I use that acronym for any god people might believe in but especially the Bible god."

Your explanation was a odd batch of cherry picked bible verses.

"Cherry picking" is poor logic that involves selecting evidence that supports a preconceived idea while ignoring or rejecting evidence to the contrary. As far as I know, there are no Bible passages that clearly contradict the TIMITS model. So I didn't cherry-pick because I didn't ignore evidence to the contrary.

Oddly, christians are often called out for using that type of argument...

Actually, I've seen many Christians struggle with their enormous Bible trying to make sense of its huge number of strange and often ambiguous passages. They base their beliefs on some parts of the Bible that they think they understand and are familiar with. It's almost impossible to know the entire Bible, so we should not be surprised that their beliefs may not be based on parts of the Bible they are not aware of.

So I admit I have the same problem. There may well be some parts of the Bible that seem to contradict the TIMITS model that I'm not aware of.

My impression of your explanation was that you seemed to ignore everyone, and carry on regardless of what anyone pointed out to you.

Actually, I posted detailed and I think well argued rebuttals to what my interlocutors were saying. Is it OK if I disagree with "everyone"?

Atheist, theist or otherwise.

Are you saying that if people disagree with me, then I'm obligated to agree with them?

Since I'm not a Christian, I see no need to argue for them...

Well, don't keep us in suspense: what is your religion?

I very often run into people online who argue for Christianity yet claim they are not Christians. They also seem to keep their religious affiliation secret. Very suspicious!

but your Acronym misses the mark with them as far as belief...

Your mistake here is your assumption that people truly believe what they say they believe. People might have many beliefs they will deny because they might fear negative social consequences.

People have to agree on terms, otherwise why debate.

Well, in the case of TIMITS the term is what's being debated. Besides, people rarely agree on the name of the Bible god. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses insist on calling the Bible god "Jehovah" while other Christians rarely if ever use that name. Some Christians even insist that "Jehovah" is wrong!

It appears that the majority rules when it comes to what we call the Bible god. TIMITS is rejected not because it can be proved wrong but because it is not popular.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

You have moved the goal posts.

You claimed and I quoted you directly from your op that your acronym covered any God belief. Now you are focusing on bible God, and conveniently want to address an issue that I already told you I would leave to the Christian debater.
Additionally I have introduced myself as requested by site owner, so your take on my lack of transparency and comments relating to this are factually incorrect.
As well as off topic.

So, since you repeatedly seem to be more interested in characterizing believers than debate them I will leave you to it.
I do feel that by pointing out to you that TIMITS is poorly defined, a construct that only you understand, and has no better value describing God than the existing word , that I have fielded an argument that makes the case that debating with TIMITS creates confusion and would need to be agreed on by debaters.
Additionally I pointed out that it was common practice to define terms in general when people debate each other.

[otseng]

I'll let forum members vote if the term should be allowed.

Please vote here:
viewtopic.php?p=935700#935700

[rikuoamero]

I'll let forum members vote if the term should be allowed.

Please vote here:
viewtopic.php?p=935700#935700

Since people rarely seem to go to Member's Only Chat (prior to the poll, the last post in that sub-forum was made in July), I was indeed surprised to learn of this poll at all. Especially since the only mention of it in relation to the thread that started it was when a moderator locked that very thread (and here in this thread...)

I also have to point out to readers that Otseng, when he posted that poll, said he would keep it up for a few weeks. Yet he ended it after only a day and a half. I was not aware of the existence of the poll, and if I had been, I would have voted yes.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 24 by rikuoamero]
I don't know about the process but I agree with the final decision to ban the term. The concept behind the term was already refuted by historia. Since then I've found the term being used in a disparaging, almost like name-calling way, rather than used in threads that actually deal with the nature and location of God.

Case closed.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 25 by AgnosticBoy]

The concept behind the term was already refuted by historia.

I would say more that historia disagreed with the term, rather than successfully refuted it.

Since then I've found the term being used in a disparaging, almost like name-calling way,

Is the term being used in a name-calling way on a user here? I'd understand if people were being called names, but no...it's someone's god, and the term is being used to show the emperor has no clothes.

rather than used in threads that actually deal with the nature and location of God.

It's what Jagella prefers to use when talking about the entity from the Bible that others might call Yahwheh, or Jehovah, or God, or Jesus. It's his name for it, basically. Why should his preferred name be banned, but not others? Why is it that I can argue that the entity is a bloodthirsty warlord who demands worship, but now apparently no-one can say he doesn't reflect visible light, is a humanoid of the human species and is from several miles up, in the same region as where the clouds are?

Case closed.

I disagree, since as I pointed out, I was not aware of the existence of the poll. Granted, I have since learned that Jagella requested that it be closed early, but still...if I had known, I would have voted to keep the term. Meaning that if my vote is added to the tally, it's now a tie.

[Jagella]

The concept behind the term was already refuted by historia.

If the T-word has been "refuted," then shouldn't that refutation render the T-word harmless? What harm can a disproved concept do?

Since then I've found the term being used in a disparaging, almost like name-calling way, rather than used in threads that actually deal with the nature and location of God.

The term "Jesus" has been used the same way. Should we ban the term "Jesus" for the same reasons?

Case closed.

In that case let's ban what you wish to say.