What forum do we want?

I realize I’m new here but I am a registered member and I’ve posted on forums not unlike this since 1996. I’ve developed a pretty good sense of when there is trouble coming my way and it usually doesn’t take long. Like, for example if a moderator says to me something like “Your posts are proselytization and I’m here to chase proselytization away.” It’s so easy to dismiss disagreement with “trolling” and justify that in the guise of critical thinking in examining religion. So the question is, really, do you welcome reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, so long as it is in an objective spirit of inquiry and does not become disruptive?

You can’t do that if you consider civil disagreement disruptive. Is it unreasonable to conclude that a forum of, let’s say, Politics and Social issues, won’t have disagreement and where, specifically, would you draw the line? The ideological Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Marxist etc? Ideologies that may be repugnant to your own as a collective?

Hey David, trouble never takes long coming our way. Look what happened to Jesus. We will just have to face life like the Son of God. Turn the other cheek.

@Sree True enough, though, to be fair, I learned very early on that most Christian forums are far less tolerant than skeptical ones which is why I avoid the former like the plague.

You can find some recent examples of proslytizers in the religion section. We’ll discuss it, but we have our limits.

@Lausten Sure you have your limits, and well you should. As do I. The question is, what is the recourse should you reach your limit. Should one disengage or silence the opposition in some other way. Of course, we are talking about those who follow the rules in either case. I would hope that you silence rule breakers, but simply disengage with those testing your limitations without breaking the rules. Allowing, of course, for the possibility that those whom you disagree with are either protected or are silenced unjustly. Such potential there for abuse leaving a group of like minded people with not much to talk about once they’ve made it clear that their limitation is really nothing more than disagreement.

Hey David, are you looking for trouble or what? When you get pulled over by a cop, you STFU. You are pretty feisty for someone who is physically impaired as you told us. If you keep this up, you are bound to get shot. Where do you hang out besides this forum? I would like to commune with you in the “afterlife”.

@Sree In one post you say.

Hey David, trouble never takes long coming our way. Look what happened to Jesus. We will just have to face life like the Son of God. Turn the other cheek.
Not quite an hour later, in another post, you say.
Hey David, are you looking for trouble or what? When you get pulled over by a cop, you STFU. You are pretty feisty for someone who is physically impaired as you told us. If you keep this up, you are bound to get shot. Where do you hang out besides this forum? I would like to commune with you in the “afterlife”.
In between those two posts, in another forum, another thread, I posted this. Follow that link to your responses and I have a couple questions.
  1. Would I be correct in assuming that I had offended you?

  2. Isn’t your reaction fairly transparent?

  3. Perhaps most importantly, are you a moderator?

  4. What exactly is STFU?

Lausten, to get back on track, there is something that would be very cool here at the CFI Forum…

Probably difficult to do. It’s an IT thing rather than moderation.

I would be very cool to have a “Like” Button.

There’s some real gems being passed along and you know we can’t comment on everything, especially when all you want to say is: ‘that was cool, I like it.’

Just saying, since you asked. You could pass it down the chain of command. Who knows. ;- )

 

Thanks for asking, :slight_smile:

@Sree Okay. So, I’ve done some research and answered the fourth question myself. Uh, I’ve done more time than Keith Richards and Vince Neil but less than Martha Stewart. Now, in my particular case I was heavily self medicated by copious amounts of 100 proof whiskey so my reaction typically wasn’t reflective of STFU as such. I would pretend to vomit or hurl insults at the arresting officers etc.

David Leon, why don’t you simply try sharing something interesting.

Your chest thumping makes you come across comical.

 

 

David Leon, Looks like we cross posted.

100proof whiskey, then playing tough guy with cops. Hmmm, how’s that going to work out. Go figure.

Did any of that teach you anything?

@Citizenschallenge-v.3

David Leon, why don’t you simply try sharing something interesting.

Your chest thumping makes you come across comical.


I don’t this this is working out.

100proof whiskey, then playing tough guy with cops. Hmmm, how’s that going to work out.
That's distant past. It didn't work out well. Not for me, anyway.
Did any of that teach you anything?
Yes. The first 24 hours is the hardest.

 

 

Leon said:

"In between those two posts, in another forum, another thread, I posted this. Follow that link to your responses and I have a couple questions.

  1. Would I be correct in assuming that I had offended you?

  2. Isn’t your reaction fairly transparent?

  3. Perhaps most importantly, are you a moderator?

  4. What exactly is STFU?"

No, you have not offended me in any way.

What did you see in my responses? Be honest. It’s the only way to clear up misunderstandings.

I am not a moderator. Don’t like moderation. I was made moderator once in a forum and was fired. The other moderators didn’t like me.

You are new here. STFU, in the way I used it, was meant as a “heads up, buddy. Moderator (Lausten) alert”. But it’s up to you, David. I wouldn’t have said a word if you could do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Z-4X4z564

@Sree

No, you have not offended me in any way
Good. It wasn't my intention.
 

What did you see in my responses? Be honest. It’s the only way to clear up misunderstandings.


Well, have you heard the phrase “hell hath no fury . . .” You seemed to have turned on a dime on me, from, what I perceived, oddly enough, as one believer to the next. An inclusionary caution “turn the other cheek” to hostility.

I am not a moderator. Don’t like moderation. I was made moderator once in a forum and was fired. The other moderators didn’t like me.
Yeah. I don't like it either.
You are new here. STFU, in the way I used it, was meant as a “heads up, buddy. Moderator (Lausten) alert”.
Yeah, I got that. I had already come to that conclusion from the discussion I was having with him and another thread started by the now infamous Roy. It's just a matter of time. There's no preventing it.
But it’s up to you, David. I wouldn’t have said a word if you could do this:
That was a funny clip. I've never seen or in fact heard of that movie.

Sree to TimB: You are not getting your parable right, Tim. If the kid says that the Emperor is naked, then the kid can’t see the fabric of deceit, corruption, incompetence and self-love covering the Emperor. Are you saying that the kid is deluded? If the people go along with the Emperor and support the delusion, then they are complicit in fooling the kid. Who is the kid representing?

TimB to Sree: Deceit, corruption, incompetence and self-love are not made of fabric. The people and the Emperor are deluded, thinking that deceit, corruption, incompetence and self-love are a wondrous raiment. The child sees the truth. The Emperor has no clothes.

It is a common and simple children’s story that enables children to avoid being fooled by lying pretenders.

To be fair to Lausten, he has a forum to run. The Center for Inquiry’s stated mission is to foster a secular society based on freedom of inquiry. “Secular” means attitudes that have no religious or spiritual basis. I am here to inquire into and question dogmas of science. In that regard, I am in compliance with that mission. Are you in compliance, David? I ask because I have doubts. Would you care to clarify?

@Sree Sure. I’d love to. Thanks so much for asking.

CFI Mission Statement

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a 501(c)(3) charitable nonprofit organization dedicated to defending science and critical thinking in examining religion. CFI’s vision is a world in which evidence, science, and compassion—rather than superstition, pseudoscience, or prejudice—guide public policy.

To make a better world, we need to use our heads and our hearts. To confront the challenges that face us as a planetary civilization, we need to use the tools of science and reason guided by compassion and respect for the dignity of every individual.

To move forward, we need to discard old superstitions, prejudices, and magical thinking and embrace facts, evidence, and critical thinking.

It’s about more than whether or not God exists. It’s about more than whether ghosts roam among us, aliens hover above us, or psychics can see within us.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) strives to foster a society free of the dogmatic influence of religion and pseudoscience; a society inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, the wonders of science, and the limitless potential of human intelligence and creativity; a society in which beliefs are not granted the same rights as people, where the freedom of expression is enjoyed by all, and all ideas are open to the scrutiny of reason.


Let me ask: How do you expect to defend “science and critical thinking in examining religion?” Through ignorance of religion? Don’t allow discussion of religion or religious texts? Sweep it under the rug.

Let me tell you a story. There is a local hell fire and brimstone Christian preacher near where I live. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have long figured out that hell is a pagan myth adopted by apostate Christianity, and so one day some of them approached this preacher and told him about the real pagan origins of hell. That the Bible doesn’t teach it. To their surprise he says: “Oh, yes, I know that.” So they asked him “Well, do you teach it to frighten your congregation into attendance?” He laughed and said: “No. I teach it because if I didn’t I would be out of a job.”

Atheists tend to think that religion is devised to control others, but actually, religion is controlled by others.

So, Christians employ the pagan hell teaching because it makes them feel morally superior. Militant atheists, on the other hand, employ science to make them feel intellectually superior.

The militant atheists grab at an illusion of concrete answers to feel secure in a frightening world much the same as Christians grab at fantasy. Neither one of them are really particularly interested in the details. Knowledge of their respective paradigms. Christians pretend to be morally rigid while atheists pretend to be operating on arbitrary and temporal representations of an alleged enlightenment. The guise of logic and reason. Primarily through the theoretic metaphysical failed experimentation of evolution.

The supernatural is the unknown and abhorrent to the militant atheists. What, though, is science? The investigation of the unknown. Science can’t test the supernatural. Odd little anomaly, that. Giant squid and whales at one time were “supernatural.” Science needn’t investigate what is known. The militant atheist is ***********************. They only jump on the “science” bandwagon once a thing has been stamped with it’s approval. They don’t investigate anything.

The CFI and projects like it don’t want to hear about religion. Like an archaeologist digging in the dirt wants to know about primitive, superstitious cultures having once existed in the smoky ruins of time. Religion scares the hell out of them. Superstitious and xenophobic themselves. *******and bent upon the destruction of the very foundations of their own cultures.

The irony is that if God does exist - and I’m sure he does - then they will get exactly what they want. Just like the Christians who force fed and indoctrinated their own people with ********* theology. Myth and fables. Don’t forget that then anyone not schooled in astrology and theology was considered intellectually inferior.

Nor forget that most of the Christian dogma comes from Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato. Like evolution comes from Greek philosophers like Empedocles, Aristotle, Anaximander and Anaxagoras.

These forums don’t ignore religion. It’s pretty much riddled with religious topics all of the time.

I deleted the words that are considered off limits. They sometimes are allowed, but this post is designed to bait people into a heated discussion. You said you read the rules, maybe you need to review the section on trolling.

BTW, if you see anyone dismissing anyone’s intellect, or pretending to have knowledge of religion when really they don’t, or attempting to destroy the foundations of culture, point that out to me.

David:“Let me ask: How do you expect to defend “science and critical thinking in examining religion?” Through ignorance of religion? Don’t allow discussion of religion or religious texts? Sweep it under the rug.”

I see your point. Your argument is that religion, in general, and Christianity, in particular, cannot be critically examined if one is ignorant of the scriptures. The Dalai Lama is not ignorant of religion. How do you expect him to examine the Bible? And how would you examine the Bahgavad Gita? Sacred texts are meaningful only to practitioners of the faith.

Secularism seeks to interpret life on principles taken solely from the material world, without recourse to religion (Wikipedia). Perhaps, the phrase “critical thinking in examining religion” should be revised to mean “critical thinking in examining cultural practices”.