|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 1, 2008 23:49:10 GMT
As someone who contributed a good deal of effort to the deleted threads, let me say this: (1) It's the moderator's forum and he has editorial control. (2) inedifix and (by and large) Hemingway stated their views in a reasonable manner and observed the rules of debate. I don't think they should have been removed. They behaved better than Redmond who has repeatedly accused the Pope and hierarchy of heresy and declared his peculiar interpretation of Catholicism is not open to reasoned debate. (3) Can the moderator please explain his actions for the benefit of everyone who posts on this forum? I am afraid his failure to do so is giving scandal unnecessarily.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Nov 2, 2008 13:12:23 GMT
Hibernicus wrote
"They (atheists) behaved better than Redmond who has repeatedly accused the Pope and hierarchy of heresy and declared his peculiar interpretation of Catholicism is not open to reasoned debate."
Tell you what hibernicus, hazelireland and other thinkalikes, why don't you defend those popes of the heresy you say I accuse them of as a proper debate requires? No better, why not start a campaign to have redmond banned.
|
|
|
Post by ezigboututu on Nov 2, 2008 13:46:06 GMT
Hibernicus wrote "They (atheists) behaved better than Redmond who has repeatedly accused the Pope and hierarchy of heresy and declared his peculiar interpretation of Catholicism is not open to reasoned debate." Tell you what hibernicus, hazelireland and other thinkalikes, why don't you defend those popes of the heresy you say I accuse them of as a proper debate requires? No better, why not start a campaign to have redmond banned. Because anyone who wants to show the mentally damage products of religious indoctrination only needs the likes of you as an example. Mentally deranged malcontents like you are tailor made for arguments against organised religionism. I don't think you should be banned. I think your fellow Catholics should start a fund to get you some psychiatric help and keep you off the streets.
|
|
|
Post by ezigboututu on Nov 2, 2008 21:31:15 GMT
Because anyone who wants to show the mentally damage products of religious indoctrination only needs the likes of you as an example. Mentally deranged malcontents like you are tailor made for arguments against organised religionism. I don't think you should be banned. I think your fellow Catholics should start a fund to get you some psychiatric help and keep you off the streets. " Dear Ezigboututu, I am not the moderator although I will venture my opinion that you should immediately apologize to Redmond and retract your statements as they clearly violate the forum rules against aggressive behavior. You may find yourself fulfilling your own judgment by applying to yourself. Oh great: loony no. 2 supports loony no. 1. You ought to worry about yourself. I've already stated on another thread that you're a deranged pathological liar and I have lots of examples from your own posts to support that. You must be banned from all the American sites as you were previously banned from this one by the CATHOLIC moderator because of your scatterbrained ravings. Why else would you be bothered posting on an Irish site when you're not Irish.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Nov 2, 2008 23:17:49 GMT
gee, where did that guy ezigboututu come from - the congo? Not to worry Saintstephen, I don't need an apology from the likes of him. Ignorance cannot help itself.
|
|
|
Post by faithful on Nov 3, 2008 1:09:45 GMT
Hold your courage, Redmond. ezigboututu has come here to mock and revile you. You belong to the true Church. The Church founded by Christ.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 3, 2008 8:21:47 GMT
Dear Hazelireland, You still have not answered my question. Why do atheists want so much to dialog specifically with Catholics obsessively and compulsively to the point of argumentation? They do not. Did you not read my reply? More often than not they are on MANY forums discussing with MANY kinds of people. Your narrow view that we want "dialog specifically with Catholics" is false and is borne of you not seeing what other sites we are on. Just because you are on one site and see us there, it is false to assume we are only on that one site. That would be like seeing cars on roads and therefore assuming cars only ever go on roads.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 3, 2008 8:24:29 GMT
'Referring to an example is not the same as changing the subject.' What is that supposed to mean? It means that I just used you as an example for what I was takling about. My intention was not to change the subject to a discussion about you per se. If you want to talk about you, start another thread and I will happily contribute.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 3, 2008 8:25:20 GMT
But how on earth can you debate about serious subjects when the person at the other end of the line is there with the intention to mock? I am more than capable of doing both at the right times and places. Try and find out. This is just cop out number 2.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 3, 2008 10:55:12 GMT
Dear saint stephen,
Maybe if you engage in debate with them they can answer your queries for you.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 3, 2008 10:58:48 GMT
Harris, you said the moderator contacted you? Can we expect a statement from him on the subject of this thread any time soon? Hi hazelireland, Obviously the contact was through a private message (PM) and therefore the specifics will remain private. However the moderator was polite and we had a frank and brief exchange of views on this matter. He did not inform me if he intends to make a statement on this issue however.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 3, 2008 11:00:49 GMT
But when you talk about illogical people, go no further than atheists. Agnostics at the very least acknowledge that they don't know if God exists or not. But atheists claim that they know beyond all reasonable doubt that there isn't a God. I have met a lot of atheists in my time, but I have only ever encountered one who claimed to "know" that no deity/deities exist. Not even Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens claim that. Most have the intelligence and the honesty to admit that they cannot "know" this with 100% certainty, for as you say, to do so is a logical impossibility. Of course, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of Christians, who frequently claim to know with 100% certainty that God does exist. I can only assume from your comment above that you do not pretend to such knowledge yourself, for as you say, to do so would be illogical. This is completely against logic when you consider the intricacies of Creation. That an atheist would argue that there is no God whatsoever is as illogical as saying that a jumper knitted itself. Actually it isn't. The statement: a deity is not necessary for life to appear on earth. Does not equate to the statement: knitting is not necessary to knit a jumper. The former has not been shown to be incorrect, while the second has. The answer to the question of how jumpers arise is: people knit them. We know, because we have evidence. The answer to the question of how life arose on earth is: no one knows. Because we don't have enough evidence. Saying: "God did it." is as empty as saying: "Evolution did it." Neither explanation shows how, or provides evidence, or proof in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 3, 2008 12:04:48 GMT
" Dear Harris, I was looking to obtain your opinion on the question of why you believe atheists are obsessive compulsive about posting on Catholic forums? I do not have the information you seek. Any answer I give you would be mere speculation on my behalf. Speculation rarely, if ever, is a sound method of uncovering facts. I can only refer you to my previous answer. If you engage in debate with them on this issue I'm sure they will state their position. However in the specific cases of the two members recently banned, it is my understanding that they were invited here.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2008 0:30:27 GMT
SaintStephen: I would distinguish between Hazelireland and inedifix who by and large have stated their views in a rational manner and ezigboututu who does nothing but hurl abuse and assert that all religious believers are idiots or in bad faith. I am surprised that he has been allowed to remain. The basic rule of debate is that you must assume your opponent's good faith until they are proven to be in bad faith. (This is why in the Dail or the Parliament at Westminster you can be suspended for calling another member a liar.) Redmond: I am not a fellow-thinker of Hazelireland, but she argues a bad cause better than you argue a good one. So far you have made palpably false claims about provable physical facts, accused every Pope for the last 250 years of heresy, and lauded the MALLEUS MALEFICARUM (a demented witch-hunter's manual which caused thousands of deaths) as a reliable statement of Catholic doctrine. If I were editing this forum I would certainly ban you - but I'm not and such decisions are his to make. Guillaume: Saying that all atheists are inspired by the devil and you are not going to engage with them is to bury your head in the sand. There are large numbers of atheists out there in the real world and in order to evangelise we must understand and meet their arguments. How better to do so than by debating real atheists in a context where other Catholics can join in and share arguments? St. Thomas Aquinas spoke respectfully of Averroes and Maimonides and learned from them even as he refuted their errors. Finally - we are not talking censorship but editorial choice. This is a private forum established as a Catholic discussion group by the moderator, not a public resource. He is within his rights to ban any of us (me included) if he doesn't like our company. Atheists have no more automatic entitlement to post here than I have an entitlement to publish defences of Catholicism in the IRISH HUMANIST or Hazelireland has to publish atheist articles in the BRANDSMA REVIEW. If the moderator had announced from the start that atheists would not be admitted to the discussion he would have been perfectly within his rights. I do think however that inedifix and Co. have a legitimate grievance in that they posted here at considerable expense of time and effort under what they thought were one set of rules and suddenly found that another set was apparently applied to them, and that it would be a good idea for the moderator to provide an explanation. Lastly, let me draw everyone's attention to GK Chesterton's romance THE BALL AND THE CROSS, in which the Catholic MacIan and the atheist Turnbull, while hating each other's views, deeply respect each other because they take these matters seriously enough to fight for them, and in which both men when tempted by the prospect of imposing their views through cruelty and injustice show enough moral sense to reject the offer. Such respect applies only to rational disagreement, and not to Redmond or Ezigboututu. I have a nasty feeling that I know how they would respond if t aken up in Professor Lucifer's airship and offered the world...
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 4, 2008 5:24:10 GMT
The posts are all gone to prove my point although I find it extremely difficult to believe that cpm did the deletion for no reason as opposed to what is posted in the forum rules. I would not believe you until you post a supporting evidence of your assertion. CPM deleted Inedifix and Hemingway for one simple reason: because the threads they were active in were generating the most traffic on this forum. He would probably have banned you and Redmond too, but you are Catholics, so his prejudiced sense of loyalty to you both (despite your sacrilegious beliefs in Creationism and Geocentrism), caused him to expel the atheist posters instead. Not for the nature of their posts, not because they broke any rules, but because the points they were making were attracting too much attention. To date, one week after the deletion, CPM has still failed to explain his actions either to this forum, or privately to the people who's contributions to this site he unilaterally expunged.
|
|