1 of 2
1
To all who feel compelled to discuss with The Champion
Posted: 24 October 2005 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2005-10-24

I have been gone for a while and came back to see how the discussions were going.  I find that TC has tended to dominate the discourse for quite some time.  My question is why do those of you who are interacting with him do so? I would think that ignoring him would be the best approach.  As it is, he has managed to create a forum of his own choosing.

It would be nice to discuss serious issues about the end of faith, but mostly I see polemics. TC says something truly stupid and many feel a need to show him the light.  I would think after a while everyone who has tried to carry on a conversation with this idiot would simply tire of the futility and let him babble to himself.

Well that is just my opinion.  For what ever its worth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2005 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

I find that situation interesting as well. I think Champ can be amusing at times, but what I find really interesting is that so many who clearly hold him in disdain (i.e. they have an appropriate level of respect for him intellectually) and have had plenty of exposure to his “thought” processes still feel compelled to try and engage him. There’s some interesting psychology behind that, IMO.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2005 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2005-03-21

About a month ago, I called for a “boycott” on the Champion.
Within a few hours of posting this boycott, I “flip-flopped” and
began to think that a boycott may not be such a good idea after
all.

I felt (and still do, mostly) that encouraging the Champion to post
his madness may be the wiser thing in the long run. Let’s face it,
alot of people in this country are exceptionally ignorant (and/or
indifferent) of anything beyond their own narrow microcosms.


There are alot of “lukewarm” secularists, non-christians, etc…out there. There is also quite a few Caspar Milquetoast, can’t-we-all-just-get-along, liberals and moderates (a la Joe Liebermann) who still seem to believe that some kind of dialogue and comprimise is
possible with alot of these nutjobs on the Xtian right. That’s about
as realistic as D/C with osama bin laden or hitler.

If we encourage morons like the Champion to spew their insane
rhetoric, more people may realize the true lunacy of the xtian right
agenda, and hopefully, resolve themselves to combatting it in some meaningful way.

  That is why I believe we should help this bird brain sing his
  ridiculous song. If one person from a ,“blue area”, (or wherever)
  is inspired to action by the Champion’s idiocy, I think it would be
  well worth it to encourage him. Champion’s nonsense
  may at least provide a, “tipping point” for such an individual. This
  clown is obviously a glutton for attention and just loves to bait
  other posters. If we all just ignore him, he’ll simply go away.
  Considering both the stakes and the forces arrayed against
  us, we secularists,etc… need every ally we can get, IMO.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2006 03:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2005-10-24

After an extended absence from this forum, I returned and browsed the threads that have been most active.  I see that the conversation is still dominated by the need to respond to the faithfull complainers rather than a furtherance of Sam’s thesis.  Now we have treblinka to contend with.

I sincerely wish those of you who feel compelled to respond to these self-certain trolls would reconsider the impact your actions have on the quality of discussion here.  You have accomplished nothing in terms of changing any of their minds.  You may feel pride in the clairity of your own logic, but to what avail?

Responding to diatribes against evolution or for the righteousness of the likes of Bush & Co. is useless, pointless, and, moreover, wastes a lot of time and bandwidth.

It is a pitty that a resource like this is wasted on diatribe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2006 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  117
Joined  2005-11-13

Personally, I have rejected the catholic and christian church dogmas a long time ago. The only part that I ever kept was that love for another could eventualy bring the other to respect me for what I am. It is a principle that actually works in reality; if we do a good turn for someone that we will never see again, if we care that the others can enjoy the life we enjoy, somehow our life becomes richer.Don’t ask me how that works,in my experience it works. Kindness begets kindness.(Here I reveal “fossils” from a previous life!).

A few years ago, I was challenged to reexamine some preconceived ideas I held about cannabis. Preconceived because until then I had had no time to study the subject, absorbed as I was in business, sailing, building stuff etc.
I read everything I could find about cannabis; a lot of the “official” “information” could have been written by the believers we encounter on this site…nothing but lies and absurdities as half the population of canada knows (who is going to argue numbers, all we perceive is but the tip of the iceberg,ask the cops).

What I found is that this IS a good plant,if used with respect.
For me ,and as I find out more and more often,for a lot of people,cannabis brings me into a prolonged state of meditation that includes as subjects the whole spectrum of reality as it impinges on the senses as well as the concepts that are already part of our memory. This state of meditative perception is like nothing I ever experienced before in my most intense,creative,alive moments previous to knowing cannabis. As I described to a co-worker (who happens to be a strong believer): when I am “sober”, it’s like I am asleep. Sure, I see and think and do just like used to,but now I know that there is so much more that is escaping my attention,it’s like it did not exist.This is why also one has to be sober to operate machinery or hire himself out;the mind has to focus on the task at hand and not be attracted to some previously unseen reality (distracted in other words).

In the course of these high meditations, it has occurred to me that the premise of all monotheist religious faiths is the concept of judging between good and bad.It is a consistently recurring theme.
It occurred to me also, that this idea of good and bad is what pits all believers against each other and the rest of the world.
Treated logically,the concept of god implies that a lot of traits accorded to god by the present day believer are in total contradiction with a divine presence wether or not that presence exists.These traits are also found in the believers “manual for believers”,the bible, and are the cause of endless quarrels between the believers themselves,let alone between the believers and the rest of the world.
I may be a dreamer,but I think that some receptive minds could be made to see for themselves, that a logical “conceptualisation” of a truly divine god,the presence that “they feel in their heart” entails a change of attitude to reality.The text of the bible ,the teaching of the christ support this idea but there is a lot of “sifting” to do; the texts are a collection of different interpretations on the subject of man’s relation to the greater reality,a lot are based on a human projection of himself into his god.
It is an interesting discovery for me ,but damm trying to put across.
Am I just “tilting at windmills”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2006 04:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“veracitatus”]After an extended absence from this forum, I returned and browsed the threads that have been most active.  I see that the conversation is still dominated by the need to respond to the faithfull complainers rather than a furtherance of Sam’s thesis.  Now we have treblinka to contend with.

I sincerely wish those of you who feel compelled to respond to these self-certain trolls would reconsider the impact your actions have on the quality of discussion here.  You have accomplished nothing in terms of changing any of their minds.  You may feel pride in the clairity of your own logic, but to what avail?

Responding to diatribes against evolution or for the righteousness of the likes of Bush & Co. is useless, pointless, and, moreover, wastes a lot of time and bandwidth.

It is a pitty that a resource like this is wasted on diatribe.

What should this board be doing?  If this were a board for discussing evolution, then I would agree.  It isn’t.  It is about the problem of faith.  If some people wind up volunteering to be lab rats. . .

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  I debate, not for those who I debate with (although getting such a person to consider something would be nice), but for the fence sitters.  I have recieved private notes which lead me to believe that some moderates can be reached by these sorts of debates.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2006 02:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  277
Joined  2005-10-24

Psi,

I’ve read a few of your posts in various threads and find your thoughts generally quite good.  If you and the others who engage in, what essentially looks like counter-proslytizing, think that is the best use of resources and time, then I will cease my concern and look elsewhere for productive discourse.  For myself, I have found over the years that argumentation with true believers is generally a waste of everyone’s time.  If you manage to assist a few fence-sitters to see reason, good.  I would have thought that could be accomplished by more direct means, but, perhaps not.

I noticed that there are a number of subtopics that are of interest to reasoning people.  But the threads under those subtopics almost invariably gets colonized by zealots and the trend I’ve noticed is that discourse gets shut down fairly quickly.

But, if that is what satisfies the resident commenters, then, by all means, have at it.  I can only wish you well and success.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2006 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

veracitatus, you’d make a great security guard at an SS concentration camp. Not mean enough to be a guard. Not smart enough to be the administrator. Somewhere in the middle. But I’m sure you’d be great at it.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2006 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“veracitatus”]Psi,

I’ve read a few of your posts in various threads and find your thoughts generally quite good.  If you and the others who engage in, what essentially looks like counter-proslytizing, think that is the best use of resources and time, then I will cease my concern and look elsewhere for productive discourse.  For myself, I have found over the years that argumentation with true believers is generally a waste of everyone’s time.  If you manage to assist a few fence-sitters to see reason, good.  I would have thought that could be accomplished by more direct means, but, perhaps not.

I noticed that there are a number of subtopics that are of interest to reasoning people.  But the threads under those subtopics almost invariably gets colonized by zealots and the trend I’ve noticed is that discourse gets shut down fairly quickly.

But, if that is what satisfies the resident commenters, then, by all means, have at it.  I can only wish you well and success.

Well, this is why I have lobbied for an ignore function, or a mixture of moderated and open topics.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2006 12:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“psiconoclast”]Well, this is why I have lobbied for an ignore function, or a mixture of moderated and open topics.


What about the idea of creating a “Nonsense-Free Zone” or something—a section where forum users have to be approved and can be removed for the kinds of frequent and consistent demonstrations of religiostupidification that TC et al have imposed upon the forum?

It would be nice to think “nonsense-free” described the whole forum, but if it did this topic either wouldn’t exist or it would be mertiless, and I think it’s pretty clear that’s not the case.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2006 05:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“SkepticX”][quote author=“psiconoclast”]Well, this is why I have lobbied for an ignore function, or a mixture of moderated and open topics.


What about the idea of creating a “Nonsense-Free Zone” or something—a section where forum users have to be approved and can be removed for the kinds of frequent and consistent demonstrations of religiostupidification that TC et al have imposed upon the forum?

How about this:  When those of us who want to seriously discuss something, and don’t want it hijacked by religious “spam”, create a new topic, we should specify this in the topic’s opening post.

By convention, then, such spam would be rude, and can be flagged for removal under the current system.

It would be nice to think “nonsense-free” described the whole forum, but if it did this topic either wouldn’t exist or it would be mertiless, and I think it’s pretty clear that’s not the case.

Sure.  We are stuck choosing amongst suboptimal solutions.  Good thing that evolution is good at selecting amongst competing suboptimal solutions. :wink:

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2006 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2006-02-08

i plead guilty!  i was new here, and the champion ‘took a liking’ to me, and i engaged him.. half heartedly, at best though.  in the process i amused myself a bit.  it’s not often that i get to speak my mind so freely in contempt!  although, it is ultimately non productive.  i agree on a boycott!  he is definitely spam considering the mentality of this site!  let me know what i can do..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2006 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  43
Joined  2006-01-14

[quote author=“veracitatus”]I have been gone for a while and came back to see how the discussions were going.  I find that TC has tended to dominate the discourse for quite some time.  My question is why do those of you who are interacting with him do so? I would think that ignoring him would be the best approach.  As it is, he has managed to create a forum of his own choosing.

It would be nice to discuss serious issues about the end of faith, but mostly I see polemics. TC says something truly stupid and many feel a need to show him the light.  I would think after a while everyone who has tried to carry on a conversation with this idiot would simply tire of the futility and let him babble to himself.

Well that is just my opinion.  For what ever its worth.

Linke mindfuli I too have too have engaged the Champ although somewhat indirectly.  TheChampion has said (not exactly but close) things like: Hitler was an atheist or Nazis are atheists.  I think it’s important to point out that is not the case.  I’ll do this in the future though without addressing him specifically.  I know it’s a pain to have to point out the holes but don’t underestimate the importance of doing so.

I think you’re right overall though.  I’ll keep my emotions in check and stick to thread.  Perhaps a quick response pointing out a hole in a thread hijacker’s logic and then a post right after keeping the thread on treack so to speak.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2006 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  43
Joined  2006-01-14

[quote author=“veracitatus”]I have been gone for a while and came back to see how the discussions were going.  I find that TC has tended to dominate the discourse for quite some time.  My question is why do those of you who are interacting with him do so? I would think that ignoring him would be the best approach.  As it is, he has managed to create a forum of his own choosing.

It would be nice to discuss serious issues about the end of faith, but mostly I see polemics. TC says something truly stupid and many feel a need to show him the light.  I would think after a while everyone who has tried to carry on a conversation with this idiot would simply tire of the futility and let him babble to himself.

Well that is just my opinion.  For what ever its worth.

Linke mindfuli I too have too have engaged the Champ although somewhat indirectly.  TheChampion has said (not exactly but close) things like: Hitler was an atheist or Nazis are atheists.  I think it’s important to point out that is not the case.  I’ll do this in the future though without addressing him specifically.  I know it’s a pain to have to point out the holes but don’t underestimate the importance of doing so.

I think you’re right overall though.  I’ll keep my emotions in check and stick to the thread.  Perhaps a quick response pointing out a hole in a thread hijacker’s logic and then a post right after keeping the thread on treack so to speak.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2006 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2006-02-13

I’m also guilty of attempting to reason with some of the blind faith mob. I do see your point veracitatus, but while TC and Treblinka are clearly incapable of honest debate, I (probably naively) hope that some of the others can be argued round.

To be honest, I do find it hard not to bite sometimes and let some of the ID deceits pass. Make of the psychology behind that what you will Byron! I will however endeavour to avoid adding to any off-topic trolls in future so as not to hinder other discussions.

Anyhow a religious spam free discussion area sounds like an excellent idea. I’m much more interested in discussing political aspects of the End of Faith and how best to counter the alarming spread of religious influence than arguing with close-minded fools and holocaust deniers.
cheers,

Cal

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 02:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

TC and Treb taken together with a rum and coke back are hilarious.

TC argues that Nazi’s are atheist, while Treblinka well, anti-semitism seems a weak word when talking about what he thinks ....

The disparities in their equally irrational God Based veiws is a clear reminder while no matter what we personally believe, secularism is the only way to run a government.

The wonder is that they don’t notice this = )

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed