While that in itself does not affect the deservedly high standard of science, on forums such as this, open to all and sundry, every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jan and even the odd Tiassa and paddoboy, I believe that when he lies, and/or redefines words, he needs to be brought to account for it.
Brief note, and a story. The brief note is simply that it's not really that simple. As to what that means? Well ....
†
Once upon a time, there was a crackpot. Big deal, it happens. In the Sciforums context, sure, sometimes these people need to be brought to account for their actions. And there is, of course, an abstract question of what that means.
So, one day, the member is a bit out of hand. A moderator issues a thread ban. The member protests the thread ban, and after discussion with staff, it is lifted, and the member is told to not make the staff regret that move.
But, well, you know how things go around here. It didn't take long.
The member was issued an infraction, and okay, you've seen the notes that come with them. And the member was reminded that he was warned about the conduct, but complained, anyway, after the two-week ban ended, so James went back and fiddled with his infraction points in order to shorten the burden hanging over the crackpot's behavior. He went on to say he would be taking the matter up with the moderators concerned, but he certainly didn't inquire with his staff before undermining them. Had he asked us at the time, we would have pointed to the discussions we were having among ourselves. But he didn't; nor did he care, because that wasn't the point. And that was a while ago, so whatever, but as these things go, sure, they affect other decisions moderators make.
And, yes, I do think about that story whenever I see you and others tromping down to the Fringe subfora to bawl about tinfoil and potsherds.
The staff tried reeling it in; the pushback was not subtle. People cry and complain about the potsherds, but in some way, that conduct is viewed as somehow necessary to the Sciforums experience. And I get it; without that one in Fringe, or a handful in Religion, certain people would read like angry bigots bellowing in an empty room.
†
Compared to fortean potsherds, or religious wingnuts, or tinfoil conspiracists grifting their way through the world of flesh and blood, our clutch of believers aren't necessarily the dangerous folk you and others rail against.
One way to look at it is to consider our religious advocates, and wonder at who or what isn't present among "theistic" advocacy at Sciforums. And part of what we're missing is a range of religious grifters, and more often than not the atheistic response to them is to accuse misrepresentation of sources, distortion of facts, &c. And, yes, this is problematic behavior. But what, such as it is, do we do about it? There are options short of simply banning them, but those require effort and at least half a clue what one is doing. Besides, banning them was never really the problem; that sort of prospect is most often presented as a problematic potential for accidentally suppressing political views when holding people to account per rational discourse. And if you ask what political views, it's, like, five years later and I still don't know because they never have been enumerated.
But it's not because atheists have the bases so well covered, or that we have banned all those religious evangelists, that this valence of grifter doesn't bother. Rather, atheistic representation in our community has turfed out their grift, which is in itself quite an accomplishment, though not necessarily one to be proud of. Marketplace majority described as a prevailing interest of supremacism and grift, is not an achievement to boast about. But, really, at this point, fallacious misrepresentation and supremacism are an atheistic holding in our Religion subforum. A more genuine student or scholar of religion and faith might eschew the opportunity of ministry because it is rejected by policy, or because it's clear that only some circusmtance outside that evangelist's power will alter the field to make discourse possible.
And something goes here about this one former atheist, but never mind.
Trying to discuss standards for dealing with misrepresentation of sources has, historically, been a problematic endeavor. When it comes to lying, redefining, and other misrepresentations and manipulations, the danger of a consistent standard by which people are brought to account is that it applies to everyone,
i.e., including atheists.
†
Nor is this all digresssion: The current thread, for instance, is intended to filter out responses the topic poster just doesn't seem to be up to dealing with. Comparatively, the thread seeks to impose particular boundaries to what the discourse is allowed to consider. The topic post tries to box in what the question can mean, according to a standard James R already believes is wrong. And if we follow this thread back to
its own referred genesis↗, we see the problem: There is the proposition to, "discuss whether the various definitions are reasonable, and if necessary we can dig down to find out what is and is not encompassed by each definition"; comparing the current thread to the other, we find that what the topic post intends to filter out is, according to James R's
disdain↗:
... not a very useful definition because it does not separate God from anything else. We can't meaningfully discuss what such a God would want, whether the God is conscious, what the God can do, or whatever, because the boring answers are: everything, yes and no, and whatever all things can do.
So here we are. We need the phrase, "made in God's image", to have explicit meaning, while explicitly precluding other considerations.
If we read the bible, say, then we are told that God created human beings in his own image. But that doesn't sound much like this abstract whatever-it-may-be that is needed to start the universe going.
And note his own article of faith, about, "this abstract whatever-it-may-be that is needed to start the universe going". That is his own construction and insistence, that God "is needed to start the universe going". Compared to what he doesn't want to discuss, the object of his consideration—
Do you believe that God made us in his image? If so, what does that mean? How is your God like a human being? What attributes of God are reflected in us?
(#1↑)
—is rather quite constricted, and if we consider the prospect of discussing what is reasonable and the judgment of very earthly and particular articles of faith, it does stand out—
Does this God relate to the abstracted kind of God we tend to hear about from the kinds of theists who are careful to make sure that their God, as they define it, is always a God of the Gaps, used to fill in only what we don't know from science, but otherwise compatible with its findings?
—that among the criteria is an historically fallacious application of an old theological discussion.
What we end up with is a call for people James R already believes are wrong, that he can judge according to his own criteria, to submit themselves for his fallacious judgment. And that other part of the discussion he doesn't really know how to deal with needs to stay out.
The contrast makes its own point: Only bring him what he thinks he already knows how to refute. He is focused on the God
he needs, not what the ostensible believers will bring.
So if "theists" aren't rushing to line up for a swig from James' poisoned well, we might pause to wonder why they would or not. Complain all you want about Jan Ardena, but whatever else, he has figured something out about the atheistic presentation at Sciforums: It is easy enough, given the casual, confident, and oft-ignorant atheistic presentation, to find within the requisite argumentative structure a station that atheistic advocates don't understand, and then just sit there, smirking. And just because this is Sciforums, there is also the question of making a point of giving him a hill to hold in order for atheists to mount a charge. And we should note,
my earlier assessment↗, to wonder who gives a damn if he can hold a particular hill, overlooked the point that Jan was gfted that hill, which he can best hold by simply staying put and letting his atheistic contracult charge.
Indeed, the wise teacher would know to let them run up the hill until they fall back down. Sometimes there is nothing else to be done.
To the other, if you're wondering about the phrase,
wise teacher, well, right.
But this is Sciforums, and the cult of Jan is extraordinary. It's one thing to worry about grifters and would-be gurus. It's another to raise up an idol.
Over the years, the excuses are myriad, but the result is the same: This lying and other problematic behavior that you feel must be brought to account is a requisite part of the Sciforums experience.
There are some interesting themes about the results thereof. But the sight of atheists—or anyone else, as such, generally, but this moment of ours is somewhat particular—reacting and responding as they have been seems to be part of the point.
