How Gravity Works - Delusion Derail

[jamest]

Actually, I think that pretty much all of us are delusional about some things - however, pointing at an individual and saying, "You're delusional," is still fucking rude.

How can you be surprised that a theist takes offence at your general disrespect of theists? If I started a thread that stated all atheists are idiots, what sort of a plonker would I have to be for reporting an atheist that called me an idiot, in response?

[colubridae]

Dear sir

I am a mad person, and I most strongly object to being compared to Xamonas Chegwe

I shall be reporing you to the head chondites chief parrot immediately.
Comparisons are oderous! Indeed!


Yours faithfully

The R.H. Slobodan EckyEcky-Ftang-Ole-Biscuit-barrel.

Wine and cheese on thursday.

I can reveal xamonas' secret identity

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

cheggers.jpg (8.47 KiB) Viewed 1252 times

[Geoff]

Actually, I think that pretty much all of us are delusional about some things - however, pointing at an individual and saying, "You're delusional," is still fucking rude.

I'm not so sure that it is, XC. "Deluded" is more of an observation than an insult, I'd say. In fact, I seem to remember RD expressing a similar opinion to those who took the title of TGD as an insult, rather than a statement of fact.

[JimC]

Having read the posts in the thread, and given a report about a post, I feel that a reminder to Jamest about the nature of our rules is the best course of action.

Our "play nice" rules are based around our interactions with other members, not on generalised comments, no matter how abrasive, we make about the deluded members of our species who believe in a deity. (see, Jamest, in case you haven't noticed, this is an atheist site...). Your comments at XC, IMO, were approaching very closely the borderline of what is acceptable, so I would advise you to address the arguments rather than the person in future.

[jamest]

Having read the posts in the thread, and given a report about a post, I feel that a reminder to Jamest about the nature of our rules is the best course of action.

Our "play nice" rules are based around our interactions with other members, not on generalised comments, no matter how abrasive, we make about the deluded members of our species who believe in a deity. (see, Jamest, in case you haven't noticed, this is an atheist site...). Your comments at XC, IMO, were approaching very closely the borderline of what is acceptable, so I would advise you to address the arguments rather than the person in future.

What about the active theists in this forum? Where are they protected and respected by your self-serving rules? Are you saying that your rules don't apply if members are theists and that they are fair game then for atheist pot shots of the kind evident within this thread? Am I, for instance, allowed to start a thread accusing all atheists of being stupid? Have you got any kind of moral justification for the double standards that are apparent here?

Who are you to warn me about abrasive comments when I and probably many others have to constantly endure such bullshit as is evident within this thread? You know, if somebody labels me delusional, whether directly or indirectly, then he has no justification to go off crying like a baby when somebody has the balls to stand up to him and accuse him of being deluded too.

I reject your ruling. Certainly, I won't be apologising to anyone here and am glad that I made the points that I did. Do what you will.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I am not expecting, nor asking for, an apology. Feel free to start an 'All atheists are stupid' thread - just be prepared to defend your case against a wave of indignant apathy. Sweeping generalities are not against the rules - just personal attacks on other members. You do understand the word 'personal', don't you?

I would never consider the fact that someone is a theist to be a justification for hurling insults - but neither would that fact stop me from criticising theism. A person can change their POV - by pointing out the inherent delusion in theism, it might make some theists reexamine their position - something that I consider to be a worthwhile aim.

I will also affirm that racists are deluded. Should I hold fire there as well? Maybe we have a few racists on the forum. The fact is that racists, like theists, weren't born that way and there is a chance they won't die that way. They are just deluded at the moment - in that particular respect. I consider that their racist delusions are damaging to themselves and to others and I will point that opinion out without any concern for whether the person I am talking to may be racist. It is exactly the same with theism.

[hotshoe]

I am not expecting, nor asking for, an apology. Feel free to start an 'All atheists are stupid' thread - just be prepared to defend your case against a wave of indignant apathy. Sweeping generalities are not against the rules - just personal attacks on other members. You do understand the word 'personal', don't you?

I would never consider the fact that someone is a theist to be a justification for hurling insults - but neither would that fact stop me from criticising theism. A person can change their POV - by pointing out the inherent delusion in theism, it might make some theists reexamine their position - something that I consider to be a worthwhile aim.

I will also affirm that racists are deluded. Should I hold fire there as well? Maybe we have a few racists on the forum. The fact is that racists, like theists, weren't born that way and there is a chance they won't die that way. They are just deluded at the moment - in that particular respect. I consider that their racist delusions are damaging to themselves and to others and I will point that opinion out without any concern for whether the person I am talking to may be racist. It is exactly the same with theism.

[JimC]

Having read the posts in the thread, and given a report about a post, I feel that a reminder to Jamest about the nature of our rules is the best course of action.

Our "play nice" rules are based around our interactions with other members, not on generalised comments, no matter how abrasive, we make about the deluded members of our species who believe in a deity. (see, Jamest, in case you haven't noticed, this is an atheist site...). Your comments at XC, IMO, were approaching very closely the borderline of what is acceptable, so I would advise you to address the arguments rather than the person in future.

What about the active theists in this forum? Where are they protected and respected by your self-serving rules? Are you saying that your rules don't apply if members are theists and that they are fair game then for atheist pot shots of the kind evident within this thread? Am I, for instance, allowed to start a thread accusing all atheists of being stupid? Have you got any kind of moral justification for the double standards that are apparent here?

Who are you to warn me about abrasive comments when I and probably many others have to constantly endure such bullshit as is evident within this thread? You know, if somebody labels me delusional, whether directly or indirectly, then he has no justification to go off crying like a baby when somebody has the balls to stand up to him and accuse him of being deluded too.

I reject your ruling. Certainly, I won't be apologising to anyone here and am glad that I made the points that I did. Do what you will.

The clear difference is between making a generalised abrasive comment about a group (justified or not), and singling out an individual member for criticism. I am quite surprised that an eminent philosopher such as yourself cannot perceive the difference...

And, given the general angry and embittered tone of your response, I must confess to being surprised that you want to remain here and post. We make no secret that we are an atheist forum, with a vast array of arguments and vituperative attacks on religion in general. We are perfectly happy to have individual theists as members, and have had interesting and useful exchanges with many. As individuals, of course they are protected by our rules against ad-homs, just like any other members. Most of those theists are mature enough to understand the general view of religion they will realistically find here, a view admirably summed up in Hitchen's memorable phrase "Religion poisons everything"...

Nothing personal, you understand...

And by the way, it wasn't a "ruling", merely a gentle reminder...

The rulings come in a rather attractive shade of blue...

PS - loved this last bit: "Do what you will." It has all the steely determination of a martyr facing the Roman lions...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

"Do what you will" actually brought Aleister Crowley to mind for me - "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Odd chappie for a theist to quote - still, each to his own...



Thinking about it, "Each to his own shall be the whole of the law!" has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

[jamest]

The clear difference is between making a generalised abrasive comment about a group (justified or not), and singling out an individual member for criticism.

There is no real difference between saying that all atheists are stupid and that you are stupid because you're an atheist. So, if somebody says that all theists are delusional, then that person is really just saying that I am delusional - because I'm a theist. In other words, there is no "clear difference", as you say. The comment is still personal. It is just as abrasive. Or am I to believe that XC thinks that all theists are delusional except myself?

And, given the general angry and embittered tone of your response, I must confess to being surprised that you want to remain here and post.

Well, firstly, read my tone as reflective of my emotional response to the thread. That is, I'm offended and pissed off. Why shouldn't I be?

Secondly, I choose to post in skeptical/atheist forums because I'm not religious (though I am a theist)... and because I believe, generally, that there's more chance of a rational and open discussion in such forums as this (as opposed to religious forums).

We make no secret that we are an atheist forum, with a vast array of arguments and vituperative attacks on religion in general.

I have no problem with skepticism of religion. Clearly, my problem is with vituperative attacks on individuals themselves. There's a clear difference, for instance, between saying that an opinion is nonsense, and an individual is delusional/stupid/insane/etc..

We are perfectly happy to have individual theists as members,

Well, diversity of opinion is what makes a forum interesting.

PS - loved this last bit: "Do what you will." It has all the steely determination of a martyr facing the Roman lions...

Put that down to a decade of ill-treatment and prejudice etc., in forums such as this. I fight my corner, evidently, and it doesn't go down too well with the masses. I understand this - it's human nature to favour one's in-group (google Tajfel - minimal studies - social identity theory). It's also human nature to improve the status of their social group's standing via social competition. You shouldn't really be surprised to see members of groups that you belittle, trying to bring about social changes within the particular society of which they are part.

[JimC]

Jamest wrote:

There is no real difference between saying that all atheists are stupid and that you are stupid because you're an atheist.

There is both a significant difference in meaning, and in the consequences under our rules. The first is a generalisation about a group, the second an assertion about an individual, with a suggested reason, differentiating that individuals stupidity as being from a particular causes as opposed to other potential causes.

However, it is the operational issue for the forum that is of the most import. Put simply, we allow generalised negative comments (although many may argue about their justification in particular examples), but personal ad homs will generate warnings or suspensions.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Secondly, I choose to post in skeptical/atheist forums because I'm not religious (though I am a theist)... and because I believe, generally, that there's more chance of a rational and open discussion in such forums as this (as opposed to religious forums).

Out of interest, why do you think that is?

[jamest]

Secondly, I choose to post in skeptical/atheist forums because I'm not religious (though I am a theist)... and because I believe, generally, that there's more chance of a rational and open discussion in such forums as this (as opposed to religious forums).

Out of interest, why do you think that is?

Probably because most theists don't consider 'reason' (not just science) to be the basis of knowing anything, least of all what they actually do believe. For them, everything boils down to faith... and people such as myself - who might challenge some aspects of their belief - are probably considered to be the devil in disguise.
It's not so bad here. I'm just considered to be a twat.

[JimC]

Secondly, I choose to post in skeptical/atheist forums because I'm not religious (though I am a theist)... and because I believe, generally, that there's more chance of a rational and open discussion in such forums as this (as opposed to religious forums).

Out of interest, why do you think that is?

Probably because most theists don't consider 'reason' (not just science) to be the basis of knowing anything, least of all what they actually do believe. For them, everything boils down to faith... and people such as myself - who might challenge some aspects of their belief - are probably considered to be the devil in disguise.
It's not so bad here. I'm just considered to be a twat.

We're all at least a bit twatty here...

[colubridae]

...I'm not religious (though I am a theist)...

Shouldn't this be on Sir Clinton's hair/breadth thread?