The moderation of this forum and bigotry towards islam

Skinwalker isn't just a moderator here and that for the most part this is the reason why there are a number of people that troll around after him from forum to forum and of course his personal blog's comments.

It's difficult to make an assessment on a moderators capabilities if they are undergoing constant trolling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He gives the stupidest infractions, and they're usually biased. He gave me a warning without even telling me what post it was for!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did you PM him and ask him what it was for?

This isn't directed at you but for the most part if a poster creates a post that causes deletion, Cesspooling or a potential ban, they have the opportunity to take it upon themselves to ask *nicely* the reason for what ever warning, deletion or banning has occurred to Fix their post or thread. However to my knowledge the instances that a poster has shown this ingenuity isn't shy of zero.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

rubbish
stop trolling
sci ridicules propositions that does cannot stand up to a reasoned scrutiny
hardly bigotry in the conventional sense cos the crackpots are diverse
you have the ufo nuts, the religious fundies, new agers, whatnot
sci shits on their propositions

you are free to take it personally but it is the argument that is being questioned, ridiculed and maligned

 

I would accept that if they would not delete my posts on atheists or Joos or make threads on my behaviour in the moderator forum. Or send me warnings against racism.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Skin locked a very similar thread on athiests I made, as trolling. He also deleted many of my posts on an athiest thread without reading them, a preemptive measure until he has the leisure to go through them when he may undelete them if they are appropriate [he also deleted (Q)'s to be fair]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84754&page=5

 

Science ain't got nuthin' t'do with it, honey

Okay, S.A.M., my two cents: You're missing a certain point this time.

Look, if said member did a bit of honest research and understood the concept, purpose, and origin of dissimulation, the thread wouldn't read as it does.

The fact is that Stryder is showing a certain bigotry here. Perhaps no religions are spared the wrath of science, and perhaps this renders certain people unable to recognize the idea of proper study and academic integrity. After all, since all religions are a joke, nobody can seriously discuss them, right?

They're incapable of maintaining a respectable Religion forum if they have that attitude.

Seriously, if someone wants to make a responsible examination and still declare dissimulation wrong and perverse and exceptional among monotheistic assertions, they ought to be welcome to do so even if that leads them to conclude that "Muslims lie". But nobody's about to do that. And, as Stryder has expressed it, we can presume that the people most interested in depicting Muslims as liars are incapable of doing so.

Yes, he knows the value of peer reviewed evidence, but since all religions are a joke, that point is irrelevant.

For the most part, we maintain the Religion forum so certain people can fulfill their need to despise the religious and pretend people of faith are nothing more than a joke. The "wrath of Science" has absolutely nothing to do with real science, scientific integrity, or anything but egotism and hatred.

Crying shame, that. Of course, Newton forbid that scientists might learn anything from a religious idea. That's why a religious concept has to be distilled into metaphysics or philosophy before they'll acknowledge it.

After all, it's too much to ask that they take religion remotely seriously long enough to do the most basic of adaptations for themselves.

• • •​

Because you'd only lie to yourself, and the rest of us would still have to put up with you.

 

lose the baggage?
how is that not laudable?

are we accept genesis at face value or try to extract some viable propositions from the passage?
as you said, why allow some ancient and possibly deluded people define the terms of the argument?

quoting aquinas rather than scripture will always lend one more credibility here

 

that is conduct unbecoming
skin really needs to get a grip
this is a tard who had the temerity to vet posts
i mean, i post but it will not appear until some mod approves it

that is astounding
fascism is inadequate as a descriptor for that action

no one, to my knowledge has ever done that
now we have skin mass deleting prior to actually reviewing content

conduct unbecoming?
very much so

 

Hurrymckane Gustav

 

This is hilarious! What about Islams bigotry towards the rest of the world???

 

Everywhere I turn, dem Muslins keep puttin me down goddamnit!

 

There be three degrees of this hiding and veiling of a man’s self. The first, closeness, reservation, and secrecy; when a man leaveth himself without observation, or without hold to be taken, what he is. The second, dissimulation, in the negative; when a man lets fall signs and arguments, that he is not, that he is. And the third, simulation, in the affirmative; when a man industriously and expressly feigns and pretends to be, that he is not. (bacon)​

frikkin muslims!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

what the hell is that? a proposition(s) that has to be warped thru the prism of a theistic ideology? how very perverse!

how is a religion distinct from other academic disciplines? does ethics require a god? sociology? philosophy? lets looksee

* a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism
* a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
* a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

how the goddamn fuck would any of that that help us in any goddamn endeavor? help us just be?

Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

wtf!!

/bitchslaps otto

The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:

In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

wtf??
depth dimension?

/bitchslaps religion

 

Funny. That's similar to what I did when Skinwalker deleted one of my posts. I distinctly remember asking him what rules I had broken with my post, so that I knew not to do the same thing in the future.

I never got a response.

Ahh, drop the act. You were the one who lectured gendaken on 'moderator solidarity'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1835346&postcount=21

Looks like it's sciforums policy for a moderator to be extremely reluctant about condemning the bad behaviour of their fellow mods.

 

bad policy
let your individual conscience dictate your actions
squabble away
plazma can earn his keep by sorting you nazis out

do not perpetuate "the thin blue line" here

 

FFS, can't you speak coherent English?

 

No, he's all excited.
He's a HURRICANE now.

 

Khaaaaaaan! Whoops, I mean, Scieeeennnncccce!

Were it not for the "wrath of Science", perhaps the scientists could find their own value and strip away the accretions instead of waiting for other people to do the work.

And distilling Aquinas into something with more rational presuppositions is even more credible.

Actually, it's a proposition that already has been warped through a theological prism.

Religion is not in and of itself an academic discipline. Theology, however, is. In related disciplines, including philosophy, history, anthropology, and psychology, it is possible to carry on rational discussions of concepts that we disagree with, and it is not unheard of that someone can make an academic argument.

The problem here is that in treating all religions as a joke, we discourage any disciplined, academic discussion of religion and theology. This is, of course, very convenient for the "wrath of Science".

• • •​

Gustav is a member of long standing and much respect in part for the fact that he is so coherent.

See, he posts in good faith, which means that it generally doesn't take long to learn to understand him.

You, however, do not post in good faith. You do not consider other people's posts in good faith. It makes sense that you would have some trouble understanding him. After all, when you seek conflict, it is quite easy among human beings to find a bone to pick. Your present complaint is a stock example of that concept.

 

Tiassa:

Are you kidding? His sentences are so fragmented and cryptic. It's not as if I'm the only poster to point this out.

I'm sure he does. But is it too much to ask that he post in proper sentence form?

Quite the contrary, I do post in good faith.

It depends on the poster's history, and the content of their post.

I can say with certainty that you do not consider other people's posts in good faith. You allow your bias to cloud your judgement, and you label anyone who disagrees with your point of view as 'dishonest' and 'elitist'.

I don't seek conflict. In case you've forgotten, it was me who offered to add you to AIM in a gesture of friendship, and it was you who ended up blocking me over a squabble on sciforums.

And let me assure you Tiassa, I hold Gustav in higher esteem than you. He might post cryptic garble, but at least he keeps it short and sweet. He doesn't ramble on for pages about shit, like you do. You are undoubtedly the worst poster on this forum, dead weight which sciforums would do well to jettison.

 

If you say so ....

If you say so. After all, we have every reason to believe you. It's not like your response to the demand that a friend back a clearly untenable thesis° with some sort of source or evidence is to demand evidence and sources of other people and then refuse to provide them for your own arguments.

Right?

And yet you seem to consider yourself exempt from such a standard.

Of course, that's not what I would call a surprise.

Not anyone. Just the dishonest people, and the elitists. And since you're never unwilling to provide support for your accusations, surely you'll be able to prove your point here.

Do you ever stop lying? I've never blocked you on AIM.

Your conduct simply discouraged me from bothering to log in°. Or did that simply fail to occur to you? Certainly, given what you've shown of your character, it seems entirely possible that you've overlooked the possibility while stoking your victim complex.

Oh, poor you. You're just another noble, innocent victim, right?
_____________________

Notes:

° demand that a friend back a clearly untenable thesis — It's strange that you'll fight other people's battles for them when you're so clearly unwilling to make any decent stand on your own behalf.

° discouraged me from bothering to log in — After all, in case you forgot, I went out and registered an AIM handle just for you, since I didn't have an active account; check your private messages from January 5 or 6 of this year, if you still have them that far back. Since your "gesture of friendship" brought no improvement in your conduct, I decided to not bother pandering to your fantasies of victimhood. Really, if you had lightened up on your disingenuous crusade, you might have been worth the time. And, as you were the only person I was chatting with, I simply haven't bothered logging in again. I haven't had a reason to.