Mods, why was The Barbarian banned?

[Town Heretic]

Your post was deeply amusing.

It had moments.

I'll skip to the points which I feel actually merit an answer (not to demean the post in any way; it's just that several "points" clearly were not intended to be answered).

Maybe more.

No kidding? Hey, why don't you tell me (and the rest of TOL) about how you would go about voir dire proceedings? Who would you exclude? What kinds of people?

I don't have to. Average isn't stupid. Most people aren't stupid. They're just not particularly well educated and not remarkably bright. The world mostly doesn't require them to be and there's not a great deal of evidence on hand to recommend it were they inclined and it a commodity. Or, that's before we get into whether or not being brighter is inherently better or altogether desirable, which is as it turns out an arguable point, depending on what and how you value.

To my mind, the mere existence of scientology and mormonism speaks volumes. :idunno:

The next guy probably feels the same way about Catholicism or Christianity, etc. Any man's faith, from the outside in, can look a bit ridiculous.

Socrates was put to death by what was, for all intents and purposes, a democratic vote. That is a fact. There is no defending this.

First you have to establish it needs a defense. Socrates had spawned a few admirers who, agreeing with his anti-democratic sentiments, had taken Athens by the throat, dispossessed citizens and executed more than a few. And no rushing mob came to drag him out of bed. He was accused, given equal time to present a defense and convicted by a vote of 280 to 220. And if he hadn't been a wise acre he might have beaten the rap. You should read Waterfield's book on it, Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths.

Catholic primary schools, high schools and universities are still a thing. The Pope is a world class intellectual. Catholic priests and bishops are highly educated....Speaking of which. What are the qualifications of the pastor at your "church"?

He's a good man, understands the Bible. He's a published author of a number of books, so his sermons are entertaining and inventive. I've had conversations with him. He's an intelligent and considered human being. He's not trying to win a Nobel.

You think your Peter was an intellectual giant of his age? So you might want to walk that litmus back a bit.

Even if true, he was an exception that proves the rule. Most people are not Thomas Jefferson.

I don't know many people who would couch it with an "if". The rest sounded good but I'm not sure it signified more than an unproven speculation wrapped in the robes of some vague mathematics. Most people aren't the Pope either, or Jesuits, or Martha Stewart, comes to it. And?

Catholicism has never been a "democratic" religion. Catholicism is and always has been hierarchical.

Try to keep anything without the support of adherents and see what happens. Catholicism was founded on the work of largely unlettered men, the sort to make your lip curl. And it was on their backs that the religion grew, by their sacrifices that the cross advanced.

I think your value system is a bit skewed, my young friend. The world is awash with intellectuals. Good men who love God and seek Him first are far harder to find.

 

[Town Heretic]

I said what I have to say.
good day.

That's about what I thought you wouldn't say. lain:

 

[Ktoyou]

I can understand that. But I find it extremely informative that right-wing Christianity can only survive in protected environments, and as soon as the playing field is leveled, it gets demolished.

:mock: Jose Fly :jolly: demolished

 

[patrick jane]

:mock: Jose Fly :jolly: demolished

THEY'RE DROPPIN LIKE FLIES around here -

 

[aikido7]

I have been banned for being "disruptive" and "blasphemous."
Which mean absolutely nothing.

It is an arbitrary action, at least as far as I am concerned. If Sherman doesn't like what you post, then he quickly grows tired and sends you away. He has yet to provide specifics in my case.

This is merely the action of dictators and tyrants. They cannot stand nuance and diversity and have to stamp it out whenever and wherever it occurs.

I can't help remembering when Meshak began to quote line after line after line, chapter and verse, of Jesus's preaching on poverty. Her comments about the hypocrisy involved vis-a-vis Christians and Jesus's actual teachings infuriated a lot of TOL posters.

And she got banned.

 

[Rusha]

I have been banned for being "disruptive" and "blasphemous."
Which mean absolutely nothing.

It is an arbitrary action, at least as far as I am concerned. If Sherman doesn't like what you post, then he quickly grows tired and sends you away. He has yet to provide specifics in my case.

This is merely the action of dictators and tyrants. They cannot stand nuance and diversity and have to stamp it out whenever and wherever it occurs.

I can't help remembering when Meshak began to quote line after line after line, chapter and verse, of Jesus's preaching on poverty. Her comments about the hypocrisy involved vis-a-vis Christians and Jesus's actual teachings infuriated a lot of TOL posters.

And she got banned.

Two things:

Sherman is a SHE ... not a he.

Meshak does not get banned for quoting the Bible. She gets banned for being a disruptive, hypocritical pest.

 

[Ktoyou]

I have been banned for being "disruptive" and "blasphemous."
Which mean absolutely nothing.

It is an arbitrary action, at least as far as I am concerned. If Sherman doesn't like what you post, then he quickly grows tired and sends you away. He has yet to provide specifics in my case.

Definitely not cool!

 

[aikido7]

Two things:

Sherman is a SHE ... not a he.

Meshak does not get banned for quoting the Bible. She gets banned for being a disruptive, hypocritical pest.

I see it differently. In fact. I noticed many posters making fun of Meshak's hat in her icon photograph! And I have first-hand experience of what many posters on TOL feel about reminding them of the teachings of Jesus!

They may take him literally, but certainly not seriously. Most traditional Christians seem genuinely afraid of him and his teachings.
Which does not surprise me given his profound effect on the world.

And unless you can be specific when you fling out judgments and labels like "disruptive," "hypocritical" and "pest" then you are really saying nothing.

 

[Stripe]

I have been banned for being "disruptive" and "blasphemous."
Which mean absolutely nothing.

It is an arbitrary action, at least as far as I am concerned. If Sherman doesn't like what you post, then he quickly grows tired and sends you away. He has yet to provide specifics in my case.

This is merely the action of dictators and tyrants. They cannot stand nuance and diversity and have to stamp it out whenever and wherever it occurs.

I can't help remembering when Meshak began to quote line after line after line, chapter and verse, of Jesus's preaching on poverty. Her comments about the hypocrisy involved vis-a-vis Christians and Jesus's actual teachings infuriated a lot of TOL posters.

And she got banned.

:mock: Anti-Christ whiners

 

[rocketman]

Two things:

Sherman is a SHE ... not a he.

Meshak does not get banned for quoting the Bible. She gets banned for being a disruptive, hypocritical pest.

Bingo! give the lady a cigar...:cigar: or maybe just applause :BRAVO:

 

[Rusha]

I see it differently.

Okay.

In fact. I noticed many posters making fun of Meshak's hat in her icon photograph!

Oddly enough, her hat is the most genuine part of her posts.

And I have first-hand experience of what many posters on TOL feel about reminding them of the teachings of Jesus!

You *might* have a point IF that were the case with Meshak. However, it isn't. Meshak does not practice what she preaches. EVER.

While I realize you have been here for a long time, you either have not paid attention to all of her posts OR you have chosen to disregard her double standard.

She bashes our military even though they provide her with the means to live comfortably.

She seeks out PRIVATE information about other members lives and then accuses them of keeping secrets.

How many times in a day does she need to tell those who believe in the Trinity that they are not true Christians?

She is much more manipulative than you give her credit for. She is not above making a nickname for others and then pretending it is a miscommunication due to a language barrier. Odd how she is able to fix it when the tables are turned.

It's great that you are her friend ... she needs it. You will be one of those she refers to as a "true Christian" ... because after all, only Meshak is capable of making that determination.

They may take him literally, but certainly not seriously. Most traditional Christians seem genuinely afraid of him and his teachings.
Which does not surprise me given his profound effect on the world.

And unless you can be specific when you fling out judgments and labels like "disruptive," "hypocritical" and "pest" then you are really saying nothing.

I was specific.

Anyone who lectures others on the evil of the military while taking money from them IS a hypocrite.

Personally, I don't care about the state of Meshak's personal life ... it's when she lectures others that it becomes a problem. It's like Michael Jackson giving lectures on the evils of cosmetic surgery.

However, you go on and continue to defend this self-anointed, martyr of perfection. She needs it.

 

[Rusha]

Bingo! give the lady a cigar...:cigar: or maybe just applause :BRAVO:

Thank you ... and NO! I will, however, accept a nice, hot Caramel Macchiato Cappuccino!

 

[Totton Linnet]

Admit it. You made that word up.

Kelp is seaweed....isn't it?


...good if you've got a goiter


Kelp me if you can
I've got a goiter

 

[Traditio]

I don't have to.

That's about what I expected you to say. Because ultimately, you agree with me. As a lawyer, you have to presuppose that I am correct. You just don't want to admit it publically. You don't want people to realize it and take it seriously. After all. It's your livelihood. You make money off of peoples' stupidity.

In case any reader is interested: I once heard about a case in which one of the attornies asked the jury pool, during voir dire proceedings, whether anyone had a problem with accepting the medical testimony of a chiropractor as medically equivalent to a back surgeon's.

That takes a special kind of stupid. And the attorney was looking to find it in the jury pool.

Average isn't stupid. Most people aren't stupid.

I've taught university courses. I've graded papers. I beg to differ.

The next guy probably feels the same way about Catholicism or Christianity, etc. Any man's faith, from the outside in, can look a bit ridiculous.

Aliens. Do I really need to say more?

First you have to establish it needs a defense. Socrates had spawned a few admirers who, agreeing with his anti-democratic sentiments, had taken Athens by the throat, dispossessed citizens and executed more than a few. And no rushing mob came to drag him out of bed. He was accused, given equal time to present a defense and convicted by a vote of 280 to 220. And if he hadn't been a wise acre he might have beaten the rap. You should read Waterfield's book on it, Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths.

He was innocent. He was a decent and good human being. His fault was that he made certain people look bad. When he talked to them one on one, he made them realize that they didn't know what they were talking about. They felt foolish. And they looked foolish in front of everyone else present at these conversations. So they decided to use their fancy talk and their public displays to get him killed.

And "the people" bought it.

That's what happened. You tell me I should read Waterfield? I've already read Plato. He was a bit closer to the events. :nono:

You think your Peter was an intellectual giant of his age? So you might want to walk that litmus back a bit.

St. Paul wasn't exactly an average joe. :idunno:

 

[Totton Linnet]

everyone,

here is what the scripture says:



Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers. It is clear that He did not whip people.

blessings.

The Good Shepherd has a rod as well as a staff, the rod is for wolves.

He has chased you out of every church you ever tried to join, He won't have you among His sheep.

 

[rexlunae]

It's really not a matter of bias. I believe that you are simply misunderstanding me.

Do you know what a bias is?

This particular point has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity, atheism, or anything else. It has everything to do with the fact that most people are seemingly incapable of coherent, rational thought and often form beliefs on utterly irrational bases.

If the only thing I'd ever heard from you was your post of ten stupids, I might have concluded that you were incapable of coherent, rational thought. Maybe you just aren't in a position to judge "most people".

How likely is it, do you suppose, that our species has been evolving bigger and bigger brains over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, getting smarter and smarter all the time, but that all those smarts haven't yielded a reasonable level of intelligence for most people?

Check out the "Would you pay a tax to ISIS" thread in the politics subforum. Check out PureX's responses to my points. And note, I don't think that PureX is particularly stupid. I don't dislike PureX. Let this point be emphasized:

You think your points are more rational than his? I'll grant you they're closer to orthodox Christianity, but more rational? Not notably. I think you're partially missing his point, perhaps in part because you assume the truth of so many things. He's certainly right that a great deal of what you take for granted was invented long after Jesus' supposed life.

I offer all due respect to PureX. As far as average joes go, he's probably above the bell curve.

You just also happen to presume that you're higher on that bell curve.

But what he says in that thread is utterly irrational by all reasonable standards (yours (even as an atheist) or mine, let us note).

I certainly don't agree with it. But then, religion is rife with things that seem implausible, including Catholicism.

I invite Quetzal to share, if it's not too personal, his "unorthodox" reversion story. If and when he does, I think that you will be compelled to agree with me.

It's possible. But I'd be inclined to assume not.

Evoken's comments from relatively recently come to mind (I paraphrase):

"I stopped believing because I looked at the world and it seemed to be governed just as would be expected if there were no God."

At first glance, that sounds good. At first glance, that sounds reasonable.

It is.

But ultimately, it's philosophical nonsense.

No, it isn't.

And what's really grevious about it is that he was a Catholic.

It's harder when it's one of your own, no?

What was he expecting the world to look like?

Intentional, perhaps?

He believed that God suffered and died on a cross. He believed in an Incarnate God who, on the Cross, cried out: "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"

Seriously, what was Evoken expecting the world to look like?

I could only speculate, although I did discuss his experiences with him. My experience is that he's a reasonable and rational person, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And this isn't just about not believing in Christianity for stupid reasons. In fact, there probably are tons of Christians, even Catholics, who believe what they do for incredibly dumb reasons. In fact, every single instance of someone who believes in protestant Christianity is a clear testimony to this very fact (again, a point I made in the ISIS thread).

No, no bias here. None.

 

[Traditio]

Do you know what a bias is?

I'll simply assume that this is a rhetorical question.

How likely is it, do you suppose, that our species has been evolving bigger and bigger brains over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, getting smarter and smarter all the time, but that all those smarts haven't yielded a reasonable level of intelligence for most people?

You atheists are constantly talking about evolution in conversations in which it simply doesn't have a place. This positively astonishes me. Seriously. It's positively ubiquitous in atheist discussions.

I have an atheist acquaintance on facebook, and it seems as though he can't go more than a paragraph without talking about it (at least in the context of philosophical matters).

You think your points are more rational than his? I'll grant you they're closer to orthodox Christianity, but more rational? Not notably. I think you're partially missing his point, perhaps in part because you assume the truth of so many things. He's certainly right that a great deal of what you take for granted was invented long after Jesus' supposed life.

Once again, I believe that you're misunderstanding my emphasis.

My point: Dude. Standards of evidence.

His point: My standard of evidence is my own personal preference.

That's the very definition, it seems to me, of irrationality.

You just also happen to presume that you're higher on that bell curve.

I certainly have good reasons for thinking this.

It is.

No, it isn't.

You haven't done the requisite work and study to have an opinion on this. It only makes sense if you have a very particular conception of what God is, and David Hume correctly demolishes this conception in Dialogues on Natural Religion.

But that's not the traditional Greek and Christian conception, and it positively amazes me that Evoken could have written something so utterly bizarre, given his background.

Philosophically, it's nonsense. What would the world look like if it were governed by a God? I have no idea, at least, not a priori. The particular way in which the world is governed doesn't provide us reason for believing in God's existence; the fact that it isn't governed in that way gives us no reason for doubting God's existence.

Furthermore, God isn't a rational agent in the way that you or I am. He doesn't think out and plan out things. He's simply not like a human architect (contra creationists).

"The world doesn't look like it's governed by a God."

It's nonsense, literally nonsense (i.e., doesn't mean anything).

It's harder when it's one of your own, no?

The issue is that his objection simply doesn't "fit" with his previous beliefs. That is my point. It's like my asserting that I love spicy chili recipes, but then complaining when a chef actually puts chili peppers in a chili.

If that was his objection, then he should have objected much earlier when he was reading the gospels: "God died on a cross? Jesus cried out 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' Surely, this is not what I would expect in a world governed by a God!"

Intentional, perhaps?

That's just it. What on earth would that look like? And "intentional" in what sense? This is the very view that David Hume demolishes in his Dialogues on Natural Religion. This anthropomorphises God.

I mean, ultimately, I can understand that the atheist might say, given his lack of education and study: "I see no compelling evidence of God's existence."

That's one claim.

But that's not the claim that Evoken made.

If anything, your "intentional" answer only proves my previous points, regarding, namely:

1. The fact that the aforementioned statement is nonsense
2. The fact that most people simply are unable or unwilling to seriously think things out coherently.

What you've basically told me, RexLunae, is the following: "If the world were governed by a God, I would expect, in that situation, that it would look like the world is governed by a God." Which is, of course, perfectly useless.

No, no bias here. None.

It's not a matter of bias. Protestants ultimately believe what they do because a book says x and they interpret it as saying so and so.

That's the whole justification of their "faith." If you press them further, they'll tell you some such nonsense as "the spirit has assured me thusly."

Again: that's just stupid.

Not because I am a Catholic, but because I am a reasonable human being who has some idea of what constitutes evidence and what does not.

 

[rexlunae]

I'll simply assume that this is a rhetorical question.

That's one way you could handle it.

You atheists are constantly talking about evolution in conversations in which it simply doesn't have a place. This positively astonishes me. Seriously. It's positively ubiquitous in atheist discussions.

I have an atheist acquaintance on facebook, and it seems as though he can't go more than a paragraph without talking about it (at least in the context of philosophical matters).

Hey, you're impressed with your thousands of years of Catholic history and dozens of learned old men. I'm holding up millions of years and billions of individuals. I think I'm holding the stronger hand.

Once again, I believe that you're misunderstanding my emphasis.

My point: Dude. Standards of evidence.

His point: My standard of evidence is my own personal preference.

That's the very definition, it seems to me, of irrationality.

No, it's actually not, and again I feel like I might need to go get my dictionary. I will agree that it's not totally rational, but it's not dramatically less rational than any other religious position.

I certainly have good reasons for thinking this.

Such as? Your own personal scorecard?

You haven't done the requisite work and study to have an opinion on this. It only makes sense if you have a very particular conception of what God is, and David Hume correctly demolishes this conception in Dialogues on Natural Religion.

I'm a little surprised that you consider Hume to be definitive on that question. If you take his argument to its logical conclusion, you would be an agnostic, since you would have no way to distinguish between a world which is governed by a god and one that is not.

But that's not the traditional Greek and Christian conception, and it positively amazes me that Evoken could have written something so utterly bizarre, given his background.

There isn't any one traditional Greek and Christian, or even Catholic conception. Certainly, there have been Catholics who have made moral arguments which all presume the nature of God. Are you repudiating those? Aquinas?

Philosophically, it's nonsense. What would the world look like if it were governed by a God? I have no idea, at least, not a priori. The particular way in which the world is governed doesn't provide us reason for believing in God's existence; the fact that it isn't governed in that way gives us no reason for doubting God's existence.

Nor for believing in any such thing as a god.

Furthermore, God isn't a rational agent in the way that you or I am. He doesn't think out and plan out things. He's simply not like a human architect (contra creationists).

How do you know?

"The world doesn't look like it's governed by a God."

It's nonsense, literally nonsense (i.e., doesn't mean anything).

It depends on how broadly or narrowly you take the notion. If you're trying to ask the question in the wide-open field of all possible gods, sure, I agree. But if you look more narrowly at any of the hypothetical gods proposed by any of the classical arguments for a god, it starts to make more sense, because the arguments themselves constrain the gods that they could apply to.

The issue is that his objection simply doesn't "fit" with his previous beliefs.

I would bet that it fits a lot better than you realize because you've assumed that you understand his prior beliefs rather than trying to understand them from him.

If that was his objection, then he should have objected much earlier when he was reading the gospels: "God died on a cross? Jesus cried out 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' Surely, this is not what I would expect in a world governed by a God!"

I know this is hard for you to imagine, but some people don't think of all the relevant questions right off the bat.

That's just it. What on earth would that look like? And "intentional" in what sense? This is the very view that David Hume demolishes in his Dialogues on Natural Religion. This anthropomorphises God.

So does Christianity. Christianity literally is about God made (-morphesis) man (anthropo-). If you attack the entire space of all possible gods, yes, it's very hard to have any basis for drawing any conclusions, but Christianity tells us about the God that it believes in. It tells us a lot. And thus it's a much easier target.

I mean, ultimately, I can understand that the atheist might say, given his lack of education and study: "I see no compelling evidence of God's existence."

That's one claim.

But that's not the claim that Evoken made.

Maybe he's not as ignorant as you imagine.

If anything, your "intentional" answer only proves my previous points, regarding, namely:

1. The fact that the aforementioned statement is nonsense
2. The fact that most people simply are unable or unwilling to seriously think things out coherently.

What you've basically told me, RexLunae, is the following: "If the world were governed by a God, I would expect, in that situation, that it would look like the world is governed by a God." Which is, of course, perfectly useless.

Surprisingly, my response continues to affirm your prior belief that you know more than everyone else in the room. Very surprising.

It's not a matter of bias. Protestants ultimately believe what they do because a book says x and they interpret it as saying so and so.

That's the whole justification of their "faith." If you press them further, they'll tell you some such nonsense as "the spirit has assured me thusly."

They've got a book, you've got a canon. Is one really more rational than the other?

Have you ever actually talked to a Protestant? Tried to figure out what they believe and why? Because it sure doesn't sound like it.

Again: that's just stupid.

True.

Not because I am a Catholic, but because I am a reasonable human being who has some idea of what constitutes evidence and what does not.

One thing that you'll eventually have to learn to do, if you want to succeed in becoming a philosopher, is to be able to understand and relate an idea that you disagree with. Until you can do that, until you can actually explain an idea and discuss it skeptically, it's hard to take your pronouncements very seriously.

 

[alwight]

Furthermore, God isn't a rational agent in the way that you or I am. He doesn't think out and plan out things. He's simply not like a human architect (contra creationists).

How do you know?

opcorn:

 

[bybee]

I'll simply assume that this is a rhetorical question.



You atheists are constantly talking about evolution in conversations in which it simply doesn't have a place. This positively astonishes me. Seriously. It's positively ubiquitous in atheist discussions.

I have an atheist acquaintance on facebook, and it seems as though he can't go more than a paragraph without talking about it (at least in the context of philosophical matters).



Once again, I believe that you're misunderstanding my emphasis.

My point: Dude. Standards of evidence.

His point: My standard of evidence is my own personal preference.

That's the very definition, it seems to me, of irrationality.



I certainly have good reasons for thinking this.



You haven't done the requisite work and study to have an opinion on this. It only makes sense if you have a very particular conception of what God is, and David Hume correctly demolishes this conception in Dialogues on Natural Religion.

But that's not the traditional Greek and Christian conception, and it positively amazes me that Evoken could have written something so utterly bizarre, given his background.

Philosophically, it's nonsense. What would the world look like if it were governed by a God? I have no idea, at least, not a priori. The particular way in which the world is governed doesn't provide us reason for believing in God's existence; the fact that it isn't governed in that way gives us no reason for doubting God's existence.

Furthermore, God isn't a rational agent in the way that you or I am. He doesn't think out and plan out things. He's simply not like a human architect (contra creationists).

"The world doesn't look like it's governed by a God."

It's nonsense, literally nonsense (i.e., doesn't mean anything).



The issue is that his objection simply doesn't "fit" with his previous beliefs. That is my point. It's like my asserting that I love spicy chili recipes, but then complaining when a chef actually puts chili peppers in a chili.

If that was his objection, then he should have objected much earlier when he was reading the gospels: "God died on a cross? Jesus cried out 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' Surely, this is not what I would expect in a world governed by a God!"



That's just it. What on earth would that look like? And "intentional" in what sense? This is the very view that David Hume demolishes in his Dialogues on Natural Religion. This anthropomorphises God.

I mean, ultimately, I can understand that the atheist might say, given his lack of education and study: "I see no compelling evidence of God's existence."

That's one claim.

But that's not the claim that Evoken made.

If anything, your "intentional" answer only proves my previous points, regarding, namely:

1. The fact that the aforementioned statement is nonsense
2. The fact that most people simply are unable or unwilling to seriously think things out coherently.

What you've basically told me, RexLunae, is the following: "If the world were governed by a God, I would expect, in that situation, that it would look like the world is governed by a God." Which is, of course, perfectly useless.



It's not a matter of bias. Protestants ultimately believe what they do because a book says x and they interpret it as saying so and so.

That's the whole justification of their "faith." If you press them further, they'll tell you some such nonsense as "the spirit has assured me thusly."

Again: that's just stupid.

Not because I am a Catholic, but because I am a reasonable human being who has some idea of what constitutes evidence and what does not.

You are utterly devoid of wisdom! Therefore, your pronouncements are just so much noxious vapor.