Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A&A Feedback

Options
1…2930323435…62

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users Posts: 1,971 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    The strawman was your somewhat insincere sympathy for the "bother" caused by "folks", presumably atheists because you say they want to give both barrels to religion and the religious.

    The moderators here, not just on A&A but forumwide, frequently request that people report posts they have a problem with. I get the impression it's less hassle for them to handle it off thread than to try to clean up a big old mess of back and forth sniping. If it is a bother to someone to moderate then they can step down. It is a voluntary position and I doubt anyone is expected to continue moderating if it causes them as much stress and uses up as much of their time as you're suggesting.

    By the way, I would expect that none of us "want to report posts". Petty bickering is not conducive to healthy debate. I'll only report posts that break the rules when I see them and think they're disruptive and don't actively go seeking them out, which why you won't find me in one of JC's threads looking for posts to report. If they are as full of vicious personal attacks as you claim then it's a shame you won't report them.

    Nope, J.C. was defending the principle that christians should not all be bracketed /boxed into one group and from there...be demonised as a whole. Maybe you missed that. Maybe the perception of J.C. blinded you to it.

    It was a mod who told us what causes them to be put to work...maybe we can all understand that.

    The origin of the species thread is a credit to the mods here (and J.C.)

    I reckon it requires a tightrope walk from a mods point of view.A.h.,the most open board here,couldn't handle 9 weeks...never mind 9 years .

    If, by your own admission, you won't be found in one of J.C.s threads...how can you have an opinion on such?


  • Options
    #933
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    Nope, J.C. was defending the principle that christians should not all be bracketed /boxed into one group and from there...be demonised as a whole. Maybe you missed that. Maybe the perception of J.C. blinded you to it.

    It was a mod who told us what causes them to be put to work...maybe we can all understand that.

    The origin of the species thread is a credit to the mods here (and J.C.)

    I reckon it requires a tightrope walk from a mods point of view.A.h.,the most open board here,couldn't handle 9 weeks...never mind 9 years .

    If, by your own admission, you won't be found in one of J.C.s threads...how can you have an opinion on such?
    JC does not 'own' any threads. He is restricted to certain threads, as his utter sh1t pollutes, infects and effectively destroys pretty much any thread he posts on. Regardless of this, some poster, with enormous reserves of patience, post some of the most informative responses you will find any where on boards. Whilst these posts are lost on JC they might be helpful to someone not as far gne as him.

    MrP


  • Options
    #934
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    After his latest dig against olderandwiser in the Specious Nonsense thread, it's my opinion that JC should be banned. Olderandwiser posted a considered refutation of JC and all he did was post trolling nonsense in reply.

    If he cannot keep within the basics of debate or even civility in the one thread he is allowed post in, what is the point having him here?


  • Options
    #935
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Edit: Somehow I double posted, don't know how, there were no slowness issues at my end.

    Mods delete this if appropriate.


  • Options
    #936
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    Lucy8080 wrote: »
    Nope, J.C. was defending the principle that christians should not all be bracketed /boxed into one group and from there...be demonised as a whole. Maybe you missed that. Maybe the perception of J.C. blinded you to it.
    ... If, by your own admission, you won't be found in one of J.C.s threads...how can you have an opinion on such?

    Err... I don't. :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    I have found this forum disappointing. There is a tolerance of religious promotion here that runs contrary to what I would expect in an A&A forum. The thread on "Judas" is a case in point.


  • Options
    #938
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    'group think, halp I'm bein oppressed'


    'yez are too tolerant'

    Can't win, really.


  • Options
    #939
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Bloody tolerant atheists.

    Go bash some skulls already!

    You call yourselves militant!


  • Options
    #940
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,022 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Cantremember wrote: »
    The thread on "Judas" is a case in point.

    Treating religion as factually true and having a discussion on that basis is all very well, but it belongs in the christianity forum not here.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #941
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Treating religion as factually true and having a discussion on that basis is all very well, but it belongs in the christianity forum not here.

    But the problem with putting such a thread in the christianity forum is that it is ideologically incapable of having contrary opinions put across about christianity. All too often any question about the veracity of the bible which is answered truthfully and honestly (i.e. that the bible is so unevidenced and badly misinformed that any proper investigator would have to reject its claims) over there is either closed down or moved into the atheism megathread where the message is lost in the noise.

    As I've said before, when it comes to religion the only way you will get an honest and open debate about its origins, mythos and truthfullness is well away from the centre of that religion. And on boards about the only place that fits is here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Treating religion as factually true and having a discussion on that basis is all very well, but it belongs in the christianity forum not here.

    I'd see it in the same way as having a conversation about the motivations of a character in any novel, or about whether Batman could beat up Wolverine. Sometimes it's nice to suspend disbelief in order to explore ideas.


  • Options
    #943
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,224 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Cantremember wrote: »
    I have found this forum disappointing. There is a tolerance of religious promotion here that runs contrary to what I would expect in an A&A forum. The thread on "Judas" is a case in point.

    I've not read that particular thread. Surely tolerance of others' rights to hold particular views is how we engage in a dialogue, which is a site wide practice, right?

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • Options
    #944
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    I've not read that particular thread. Surely tolerance of others' rights to hold particular views is how we engage in a dialogue, which is a site wide practice, right?


    Jaysus no, that's the wrong way to go about things. We have to show a religious devotion to intolerance of difference to show how we're better than them.


  • Options
    #945
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    I've not read that particular thread. Surely tolerance of others' rights to hold particular views is how we engage in a dialogue, which is a site wide practice, right?

    No. I didn't say anything about tolerance of the right to hold views. I said tolerance of their promotion in a forum which by definition denies the validity of those views. If the forum exists by virtue of the denial of the very validity of those views why does the forum allow them to be promoted. A contradiction in terms.


  • Options
    #946
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    kylith wrote: »
    I'd see it in the same way as having a conversation about the motivations of a character in any novel, or about whether Batman could beat up Wolverine. Sometimes it's nice to suspend disbelief in order to explore ideas.

    Yes but you'd do that in films or fiction.


  • Options
    #947
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Cantremember wrote: »
    Yes but you'd do that in films or fiction.
    You can discuss the motivations, significance, etc, of characters in any narrative, whether factual, fictional or belonging to any other literary genre. It may sometimes make a positive contribution to the discussion to point out the narrative is fictional, or that you take it to be fictional. But sometimes it just looks like insecurity, or coat-trailing, or a chip on the shoulder.

    Always best to ask yourself if mentioning the genre of the narrative is relevant to the points people are making in the discussion. If not, why mention it?


  • Options
    #948
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Cantremember wrote: »
    I said tolerance of their promotion in a forum which by definition denies the validity of those views. If the forum exists by virtue of the denial of the very validity of those views why does the forum allow them to be promoted. A contradiction in terms.

    There's something to be said for giving folk enough rope to hang themselves, as the saying goes. It's not like we're in any danger of being converted if their views aren't minutely challenged and called fictitious, and the forums are not in competition, so listening to a few folk analyse the possible meanings of a particular text is no problem surely?

    And btw, I would hope this forum exists in it's own right actually. Perhaps other forums exist by virtue of the denial of the validity of atheism. You know - like with all religions. "Ah noooo, unexplainable/unpalatable stuff! There must be a higher power!". We're the ones who are comfortable with not having the answers, remember?


  • Options
    #949
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Shrap wrote: »
    There's something to be said for giving folk enough rope to hang themselves, as the saying goes. It's not like we're in any danger of being converted if their views aren't minutely challenged and called fictitious, and the forums are not in competition, so listening to a few folk analyse the possible meanings of a particular text is no problem surely?
    Whether a particular narrative is historically factual or not, it may still have a meaning or signficance which is worth discussing.

    And, in the particular instance of the "Judas" thread, the case being made was that the Christian position was internally inconsistent, having regard to the Judas narrative and what it means. (I didn't think the case was successfully made out, but that's what was being argued.) That seems to me pre-eminently the kind of discussion that is proper for an atheist/agnostic discussion board - a challenge to the internal consistency of a theist position.

    The alternative view, that atheists shouldn't countenance any discussion of religious beliefs at all, seems a bit bleak. Atheism is basically defined by its attitude to religious belief; if you ban any discussion of religious belief there's not much left to talk about, as far as I can see.


  • Options
    #950
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    And, in the particular instance of the "Judas" thread, the case being made was that the Christian position was internally inconsistent, having regard to the Judas narrative and what it means.

    Yes, that's what was making it interesting!


  • Options
    #951
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Atheism is basically defined by its attitude to religious belief; if you ban any discussion of religious belief there's not much left to talk about, as far as I can see.

    Ok, but I rather think that atheism is the default position and that religiosity is defined by it's attitude (of horror!) to there being no supernatural meaning to life. Otherwise, I agree with you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,103 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Shrap wrote: »
    Ok, but I rather think that atheism is the default position and that religiosity is defined by it's attitude (of horror!) to there being no supernatural meaning to life. Otherwise, I agree with you.
    My point is that atheism is, basically, lack of belief in god. And that makes it very hard to discuss atheism without any mention of belief in god. Most atheists will, e.g., explain their choice of atheism by critiquing theist beliefs (which is basically what you do in the post above, suggesting that theist belief are a response to existential anxiety). If all that were to be off the table, as cantremember's position seems to imply, A&A would be a very quiet place.


  • Options
    #953
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Still, this cross was on private land and whomever cut it down had no legal right or mandate to do so. I am sure even you guys can agree with that?
    I'm sure indeed that "us guys" not only can agree on that, but probably do agree on that, given that it appears to be pretty the opinion, direct or implied, of just about every poster in this thread.

    BTW, try cut down on the "you guys" kind of stuff - let's try and leave slip a little cheery winterval spirit, eh?

    BTW^2, it's "whoever cut it down", not "whomever cut it down". See here.

    #gladtohelp!


  • Options
    #954
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    any chance of a Brown Bomber appreciation thread being created now he's been site banned? :P

    :pac:


  • Options
    #955
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Cabaal wrote: »
    any chance of a Brown Bomber appreciation thread being created now he's been site banned? :P

    :pac:
    What did he do this time?


  • Options
    #956
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    He threatened legal action for "incitement to hatred".


  • Options
    #957
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Ahh, missed that. Thank you.


  • Options
    #958
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,022 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    For the terminally curious, the thread is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93217185

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #959
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    For the terminally curious, the thread is here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93217185

    First:


    Second:
    What's the over/under in Vegas on the number of days before a new user comes on here spouting nonsense about religious persecution in a very familiar voice?


  • Options
    #960
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,446 ✭✭✭weisses


    Cabaal wrote: »
    any chance of a Brown Bomber appreciation thread being created now he's been site banned? :P

    :pac:

    I say put your money where your mouth is

    :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Mod:

    JC, do NOT post in this thread again!
    Why am I banned from posting in this thread (the thread about the vandalised cross in Kerry)?

    I'm merely the messenger ... it is unacceptable for you guys to allow posters to condone and support illegality and the destruction of Christian symbols.
    Such support for intolerance is also counter-productive to any cause that Atheism may espouse,
    Please don't shoot the messenger ... and by muzzling me and my views as a Christian ... indicate to all Christians what will happen to their opinions, if atheists with similar views, ever gain control over our schools, hospitals, or any other institution where respect for individual opinion and religious outlook is important.

    Indeed, on a forum whose members seem to pride themselves on offering 'alternative' opinions on just about everything, why am I confined to the mega-thread, simply because I espouse Christian views?
    I'm not the one advocating vandalising the symbols of other faiths and none ... I'm advocating respect for them ... yet I'm the one banned ... and nobody else has been taken to task.

    That is OK if this is how Atheism wishes to have itself perceived ... but I would suggest that an approach that involves supporting those who desecrate crosses and suppressing Christians who object, isn't going to win you many friends or influence anybody other than yourselves, when it comes to the respectful inter-religious dialogue that is required in any multi-cultural pluralist society worthy of the name.
    ... and if you think that this is the way to take over Christian-run schools, hospitals, etc., (by suppressing Christian opinions before you have even taken them over) then I'd suggest that ye need to think again on this one.


Advertisement