Banned from Christianity Forum

oscarBravo

Boston wrote:

I think the comment would have earned you a ban from politics or humanities just as quickly.

As always, when someone mentions what woulda happened if it had been in Politics, I feel compelled to throw in my tuppence worth: as I see it, what happened was that a thread was started to discuss a moderation decision in another thread. For that, I would ban someone from Politics without hesitation.

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Actually, you misunderstand the basic logical concept of validity.

A valid argument is one where if the premises are true then the conclusions follows but the premises do not actually have to be true for the argument to be valid.

A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are true.



Do we have enough evidence now?


Edit: There's a good explanation of validity and logical consequences here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/

Correct the inference is valid, but is the argument sound - no.

Tim Robbins

DeVore wrote:

You go to the Christianity forum not for light but for heat. You are aggressive and provocative in a forum where it is not warranted or desired.
DeV.

Never mean to be aggressive, ask challenging questions yes. I agree they are provocative.
I think again though your post is close to the hub of the issue though. Religion gets a safety blanket and you just not allowed ask certain questions.
In that debate about the reformation, if you pointed out that Calvin was a murderer as he effectively killed Michael Servetus who was burnt at the stake you would probably be banned too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_calvin
I am surprised I was not banned for pointing out the biggotry and hatred of Martin Luther.
I never critised PDN's daughter, I just asked a perfectly valid question, there are violent elements in Christian scripture how does he reconcile the dichotomy?
The reality certain questions are not accepeted on that forum and the charter should be updated to reflect that.

Tim Robbins

oscarBravo wrote:

As always, when someone mentions what woulda happened if it had been in Politics, I feel compelled to throw in my tuppence worth: as I see it, what happened was that a thread was started to discuss a moderation decision in another thread. For that, I would ban someone from Politics without hesitation.

The other thread was to discuss a philosophical concept of Christianity actually. Which happens to be a no go area in the Christianity forum.

Boston

Tim Robbins wrote:

The other thread was to discuss a philosophical concept of Christianity actually. Which happens to be a no go area in the Christianity forum.

And how does moderator action fit into that.

Tim Robbins

Boston wrote:

And how does moderator action fit into that.

Moderator took objection to it and banned me.
So far it seems about 20 are supportive of my ban and 5 are don't knows and 0 are against it. Is anybody against it?

raido9

Tim Robbins wrote:

Moderator took objection to it and banned me.
So far it seems about 20 are supportive of mine ban and 5 are don't knows and 0 are against it. Is anybody against it?

Doesn't look like it.

If you want my advice I'd drop it if I were you. Your complaining is starting to look pathetic.

Tim Robbins

raido9 wrote:

Doesn't look like it.

If you want my advice I'd drop it if I were you. Your complaining is starting to look pathetic.

21

raido9

Tim Robbins wrote:

21

Sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously. You've been banned, its not going to change. Just post somewhere else. Unless you enjoy stubborn argueing your probably better off. I consider a good debate/ argument one where both sides listen to what the other says and actually think about it and maybe take it on board, rather than thinking how to argue against it. You dont have much chance of that happening in that forum.

They have their views and you have yours, and there's no way either of ye will change them.

Rev Hellfire

I'll be your friend!

Tim Robbins

raido9 wrote:

Sorry couldn't resist.

Seriously. You've been banned, its not going to change. Just post somewhere else. Unless you enjoy stubborn argueing your probably better off. I consider a good debate/ argument one where both sides listen to what the other says and actually think about it and maybe take it on board, rather than thinking how to argue against it. You dont have much chance of that happening in that forum.

They have their views and you have yours, and there's no way either of ye will change them.

I have changed my mind both in and out of that forum.
Although my style is out of place in that forum. It's not agreesive, it's not rude. It's too provocative, too analytical or logical even though nesf will disagree. It's annoying that they are just telling me I am rude and agreesive etc. It'a also annoying that once again religion gets a protective magic blanket put around it. You can't even use the word "pathetic" in relation to a personal argument about you. If the tables were turnt and I made personal remarks about PDN and he said they were a pathetic argument, I doubt very much he'd even receive a warning.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'll be your friend!

Cool do you know anybody else?
21, 5, 1 (or there abouts)

Hagar

I think you just have to accept that all the forums exist for people who share a common interest.
They are not particularly interested in having people run down their hobby/belief/whatever.

If you go to the Mustard Forum and run down Mustard you will get thrown out.
If you go to the Military Forum and run down the Military you will get thrown out.
If you go to the LGB Forum and run down their lifestyle/sexuality you will get thrown out.
If you go to the TCD Forum and run down TCD you will get thrown out.
If you go to the Hip-HOP Forum and run down Hip-Hop you will get thrown out.

Why do you expect the Christianity Forum to be much different?

Leave them to get on with it.
They will be happy enough without your negative, in their view, input.

Tim Robbins

Hagar wrote:

I think you just have to accept that all the forums exist for people who share a common interest.
They are not particularly interested in having people run down their hobby/belief/whatever.

If you go to the Mustard Forum and run down Mustard you will get thrown out.
If you go to the Military Forum and run down the Military you will get thrown out.
If you go to the LGB Forum and run down their lifestyle/sexuality you will get thrown out.
If you go to the TCD Forum and run down TCD you will get thrown out.
If you go to the Hip-HOP Forum and run down Hip-Hop you will get thrown out.

Why do you expect the Christianity Forum to be much different?

Leave them to get on with it.
They will be happy enough without your negative, in their view, input.

22, 5, 1

Hagar

I'm not against you, or the points you are making, just trying to tell it like it is.

Even if you get the 22,5,1 to change to 22,5,99999 nothing will change. The ban will only be lifted by the Christianity mods when they see fit.
They are doing what they believe is right for their community.

Tim Robbins

Hagar wrote:

I'm not against you, or the points you are making, just trying to tell it like it is.

Even if you get the 22,5,1 to change to 22,5,99999 nothing will change. The ban will only be lifted by the Christianity mods when they see fit.
They are doing what they believe is right for their community.

Can't argue with that, they should update their charter though as there are several atheist V christian debates on the forum and from my perspective the consistency of what is allowed and what is not just doesn't seem to be there.
They give the impression to me they are ok with debate, but then they were not.
I'll put you down as a don't know then.
21, 6, 1

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Never mean to be aggressive, ask challenging questions yes. I agree they are provocative.
I think again though your post is close to the hub of the issue though. Religion gets a safety blanket and you just not allowed ask certain questions.
In that debate about the reformation, if you pointed out that Calvin was a murderer as he effectively killed Michael Servetus who was burnt at the stake you would probably be banned too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_calvin
I am surprised I was not banned for pointing out the biggotry and hatred of Martin Luther.

Once again, Tim, your rant fails to take account of the facts. There is already a thread in the Christianity forum that I started entitled "Thank God for the Decline of Christendom". My OP in that thread contained the following:

Luther and Calvin's Reformation simply paved the way for Catholic Christendom to be relaced by Protestant Christendom in certain parts of Europe. Luther approved of the persecution of Jews, the drowning of anabaptists who wished to worship God according to their consciences, while Calvin's Geneva burned Michael Servetus as a heretic.

I had already raised the issue of Servetus, and pointed out the bigotry of Luther, long before you did. So, it is not a case of religion getting a safety blanket, just a requirement that posters behave with a minimum of good manners.

Sangre

For someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife Tim you're certainly wasting a lot of time in this life on a fairly innocuous dilemma.

Time Magazine

Hagar wrote:

If you go to the Military Forum and run down the Military you will get thrown out.

Correction:

Hagar

As Military Mod I may have understated that slightly...:D

nesf

Before Editing:

Tim Robbins wrote:

No your syllogism is not valid because premise b is not true. We discussed premise b and it was found that you derived it based it on your own subjective interpretation of a post, not something that was valid. You thought the Fine Gael was a throw away tongue in cheek remark, I thought it was argument by analogy - the evidence is inconclusive.

After Editing:

Tim Robbins wrote:

No because a and b are not axioms, there are premises in your
syllogism.
Any ridiculous inference can be valid if any premise is assumed.

Time of edit: 23:19 two minutes after where I point out you don't understand what validity means.


Damn internet and it showing when you edit things. Oh and premises don't have to be axioms in order to be true btw. Being intellectually dishonesty via the edit button is a bad thing, especially when I had quoted your original statement in my reply pointing out the errors.

PDN

original_psycho wrote:

Not a student of logic here but that remark was a result of a definitive action.
This question is exhaustive; it is either right or wrong.

Ask the author, was it an analogy or was it not?

It was an analogy, but contained no argument. It was just a humorous throw away observation.

My goodness, even Stevie Wonder could have seen that!

So Tim then responded with:

Sorry for sounding analy but arguing by analogy is a classical logical fallacy.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

Anyway, usually huge confusion, discussion, disagreement over the meaning of the words agnostic and atheism and not over participating in Fine Gael and not knowing who you vote for.

I didn't actually respond to Tim's criticism of my analogy since the last paragaraph was written in pidgin English and he himself admitted he was sounding "analy". I thought it would be rude to agree with him.

popebenny16

Tim, I'm with you!!!!

And not because your wife Susan is as sexy as hell!!!

I'm number two!!!

Lets go and get those guys on the christian forum:

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Time of edit: 23:19 two minutes after where I point out you don't understand what validity means.

I know what validity means in a logical context.

Damn internet and it showing when you edit things.

Well if makes other people happier for them to know that could be a good thing.

Oh and premises don't have to be axioms in order to be true btw.

Agree

Being intellectually dishonesty via the edit button is a bad thing, especially when I had quoted your original statement in my reply pointing out the errors.

Apologies it was late and I didn't realise that. You are right though something can be logically valid, if the premise is true, false or an axiom, I don't disagree with that. It just means you can have end up with the most ridiculous conclusions then.
The core of our disagreement seems to be on my intrepretation of PDN's analogy and yours.
I didn't see the point of him using it outside an argument by analogy and you did.

Tim Robbins

popebenny16 wrote:

Tim, I'm with you!!!!

And not because your wife Susan is as sexy as hell!!!

I'm number two!!!

Lets go and get those guys on the christian forum:

Thanks popebenny.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

I know what validity means in a logical context.

Of course you do, I explained very clearly in my reply to you, however; in your original reply to me you clearly showed that you didn't understand what it meant in a logical context.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Apologies it was late and I didn't realise that. You are right though something can be logically valid, if the premise is true, false or an axiom, I don't disagree with that. It just means you can have end up with the most ridiculous conclusions then.

That's the whole point. Logic can not show something to be true or false strictly. I can make logically valid arguments where the truth of the conclusion relies totally on the premises. Then, if I can show the premises to be true I have a sound argument. The concept behind this is the idea of logical consequence, if I form an argument which shows that if A and B are true then C is true then I need only prove A and B. However, the arguments logical value doesn't change depending on whether A or B or C are true. Logic can only give me validity, soundness comes from a different source.


This is beginning to feel more and more like a philosophy tutorial that I'm not being paid for.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

It was an analogy, but contained no argument. It was just a humorous throw away observation.

My goodness, even Stevie Wonder could have seen that!

So Tim then responded with:

I didn't actually respond to Tim's criticism of my analogy since the last paragaraph was written in pidgin English and he himself admitted he was sounding "analy". I thought it would be rude to agree with him.

I looked at it as an argument even though not part of your main argument which is why do atheists post on christian forum.
In this argument, you found it strange that atheists were in the same forum title with agnostics you thought that was strange and used your analogy to explain why it was strange.

I was rebutting that argument and wasn't really interested in arguing your main thread argument at the time.

You can poke fun at a blind person and I can't use the word pathetic.
How much do you pay the mods here? (Joke - not meant to offend ok).

Tim Robbins

nesf wrote:

Of course you do, I explained very clearly in my reply to you, however; in your original reply to me you clearly showed that you didn't understand what it meant in a logical context.

It explains in Chapter one of that book by Priest your point here. I know it. It was late and wrote a rubbish post, reedited it and still was not clear, well not clear enough, I thought I clarified it later but it's nto good enough for you.

That's the whole point. Logic can not show something to be true or false strictly. I can make logically valid arguments where the truth of the conclusion relies totally on the premises. Then, if I can show the premises to be true I have a sound argument. The concept behind this is the idea of logical consequence, if I form an argument which shows that if A and B are true then C is true then I need only prove A and B. However, the arguments logical value doesn't change depending on whether A or B or C are true. Logic can only give me validity soundness comes from a different source.

I agree completely. I said today at 8:34 am Correct the inference is valid, but is the argument sound - no.

This is beginning to feel more and more like a philosophy tutorial that I'm not being paid for.

well my post and reedited post from alst night is to blame fo rthat, written late at night and poorly, I have already apologised.

nesf

Tim Robbins wrote:

It explains in Chapter one of that book by Priest your point here. I know it. It was late and wrote a rubbish post, reedited it and still was not clear, well not clear enough, I thought I clarified it later but it's nto good enough for you.


I agree completely. I said today at 8:34 am Correct the inference is valid, but is the argument sound - no.


well my post and reedited post from alst night is to blame fo rthat, written late at night and poorly, I have already apologised.

Fair enough, but editing posts after they've been replied to isn't on tbh. Better to reply in a different post and explain that you just made a mistake.

seamus

Are you guys still talking about this banning or debating something else entirely?

How is the content of the thread in Xtianity (see what I did there?) in any way relevant to this thread?