Hello!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla, Actually, that doesn't have to be much of an issue. Rational people should be able to figure how how to act ethically and morally. If you want to have better relationships with your fellow human beings (i.e. your wife, family and friends), you can use the scientific method to arrive at conclusions that some modes of behavior work much better than others...assuming you have the goal of having more convivial relationships. If you have the goal of of staying out of jail, you can recognize that if you behave in a certain way, you are more or less likely to wind up behind bars. You do not need to believe God exists to figure out a lot of these things. Once again, believing in God does not have to be about need.

Once again, when I'm feeling more energetic, I'll be delighted to go into much more depth about some of this stuff.

So we agree there's no real need for a god. Good.

[Mephistopheles]

Hey Cranston,

Lol, you just can't get rid of me. I see you've wizened up and found a place where you're allowed to post your preachy God Game. And since there are no rules here I see no reason to contest it. Might even play, given that we now understand each other a bit better.

If it makes you feel better, I was defending the mods purely because I was asked for input. Before that, I didn't give two shits about it, and after that I was purely arguing based on forum rules. From experience, it's tough to please everyone as a mod and there are always incidences where the rules as interpreted by a mod don't quite match up with those of a particular user, and under that understanding whatever mod locked your game thread was completely justified in doing so. The whole "censorship" accusations simply weren't warranted on such an occasion, especially when they pale in comparison to the big cases of censoring they've let fly in the past. I'm just a rules whore; if rules are there and they fit the general philosophy of the forum, I defend them with tooth and claw.

But bad bit of luck being permabanned. I didn't think the mods would be that tough on you. EDIT: Oh, so apparently other stuff happened. Nevermind, then; I don't want to know what went on there, because it sounds like a lot of privacy rights would be infringed upon in the process.

Hope you enjoy it here,

Meph (please not Mephi... )

P.S. There will likely be a lot of counter-argumentation and derailing going on if you post preachy threads. Not saying you shouldn't post them, but be forewarned...

[LaMont Cranston]

virphen, We all can hope for many things, and you're perfectly welcome to hope that I will conduct myself in a certain manner. After all, hope springs eternal...

[LaMont Cranston]

Meph, Actually, I had no desire to get rid of you. I did find that those who had assumed power on RS seemed to be very uptight. On another thread on this forum, somebody said that the Nazi types went to RS, and the fun types wound up here.

So far, I think it was good luck being permabanned on RS. If that hadn't happened, I probably wouldn't have checked out this place. I really do think that they were looking for an excuse to get rid of me, but, bottom line, if they can't deal with somebody like me who is genuinely interested in what atheists have to say, they are destined to have very limited appeal. I suspect that many of those people feel heavily betrayed by the behavior of Dawkins, and, without question, he really fucked up his reputation as a spokesman for what's supposed to be rational thinking. However, I think that some of these people who were in positions of power might look at their own behavior. From what I can tell, the mods of RS have made no mention of banning me, and I think that some of them know it was not a particularly brave act on their parts.

At the moment, I have no desire to bring "The God Game" back to life. It looks like there are quite a few interesting things going on here, and I want to check them out. I did have a problem with a certain member of RDF and RS, and I really don't want to get into personal issues that happened with him. Suffice to say, I do not respect that individual, and he freely and willingly revealed, even bragged, information about his personal life. I did not use that information against him in any threatening way, but I did point out to him that anybody who puts out personal information about themselves, their families, etc. on the internet is making that information available to the entire world. If somebody freely offers that information, it seems to me that they have violated some of their own right to privacy.

I think the guy had an emotional meltdown similar to Dawkins, but I'm not interested in getting involved in those kinds of situations with that guy or anybody else. I like it here and hope to see you around the forum. Perhaps we'll even drink a frosty mug of cyber-beer...

[CookieJon]

CookieJon, It's nice to see you here!

Nice to see you too! It's a bit more casual here at Ratz, I've discovered, but I sure miss the crazy theists that were attracted to RDF like moths to the flame!

For the time being, it seems to me that people have such strong emotional reactions to The God Game that I just don't to go there.

I only objected to your God game on the grounds that it was going on and on with no point, contrary to what was advertised of it in the first place; not that I was "threatened" by it, as you were claiming back on RDF.

I choose not to discuss my academic credentials

If you choose not to discuss your academic credentials, then why on Earth did you say in your second sentence on this forum "I do have legitimate academic credentials."

I notice you place your "academic credentials" in the same sentence as the one informing us yet again you are "Dr Robert Klass". I am just wondering if you really are a doctor and if your "academic credentials" give you this title, or whether you are just intimating they do by placing both statements near each other, without actually directly telling a lie. Care to clear this up for me?

Oh, and out of interest, what were you banned for as RS? The site's only been up for a week or so, so it must have been a doozey!!

[LaMont Cranston]

Feck, Either gentle theism deserves gentle atheism...or it doesn't. One of the things I've found in life is that gentleness is hardly a sign of weakness; it's a sign of strength. That's not preaching; it's a description.

I must admit that I have to work to control some of my tendencies to be less than gentle. I grew up in a bad part of town, and I have something of a street mentality. Funny thing though, I have found that most of the thug, criminal and bad-ass types I've known in life have been more gentle than the types who give lip service to being non violent and think it gives them the right to act like total assholes. The thugs might go upside your head if you cross them, but they usually let you know where the line is and when you're about to cross it. The punks think they have the right to get away with anything, and they think it's your fault that they fucked up.

[charlou]

Lol, you just can't get rid of me. I see you've wizened up and found a place where you're allowed to post your preachy God Game. And since there are no rules here I see no reason to contest it. Might even play, given that we now understand each other a bit better.

Hi,

Just want to point out that rationalia does have guidelines. They're designed for minimal restriction on subject matter and maximum emphasis on 'play nice'. We do our best to encourage the latter.

Carry on.

[Feck]

Hey I said gentle not weak

[LaMont Cranston]

Feck, So, we agree that gentle and weak are two different things. Good!

[Mephistopheles]

Meph, Actually, I had no desire to get rid of you.

I kid.

So far, I think it was good luck being permabanned on RS.

Alas, if you had only come here first...or TAF. Which is pretty random as well; and we have a few more theistic members over there than over here at Rats, FYI.

From what I can tell, the mods of RS have made no mention of banning me, and I think that some of them know it was not a particularly brave act on their parts.

Apparently there's some sort of banned members list that was published recently. So sort of. But they keep the circumstances that led to a user's banishment brief, which I respect because it's sort of bad form to publish private feuds in detail.

If somebody freely offers that information, it seems to me that they have violated some of their own right to privacy.

Though I do sort of disagree, and yet do agree. They don't violate their own right to privacy in any way--they're perfectly entitled to post as much personal information as they like, but they certainly do forfeit the right to keep private anything they post online. I don't particularly care about the gory details as to how this escalated into a feud, though. None of my business.

I think the guy had an emotional meltdown similar to Dawkins,

Seriously? I was never a largely active member of RDF, so I wouldn't remember any Dawkins meltdowns. I'd love to see that.

I like it here and hope to see you around the forum. Perhaps we'll even drink a frosty mug of cyber-beer...

You're on; though I don't drink beer so much as chug vodka. I hope to see more of you as well.

Lol, you just can't get rid of me. I see you've wizened up and found a place where you're allowed to post your preachy God Game. And since there are no rules here I see no reason to contest it. Might even play, given that we now understand each other a bit better.

Hi,

Just want to point out that rationalia does have guidelines. They're designed for minimal restriction on subject matter and maximum emphasis on 'play nice'. We do our best to encourage the latter.

Carry on.

Yeah, when I reread my post I thought I should edit it to say "no rules about preaching," but then figured Cranston got the gist and a (lovely) admin like yourself wouldn't catch that small untruth. I can see no transgression passes the ever watchful eyes of the staff here, and I stand dutifully spanked.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, when I reread my post I thought I should edit it to say "no rules about preaching," but then figured Cranston got the gist and a (lovely) admin like yourself wouldn't catch that small untruth. I can see no transgression passes the ever watchful eyes of the staff here, and I stand dutifully spanked.

You don't get spanked by Charlou until you have at least 100 posts.

And there is a queue.

[LaMont Cranston]

Gawdzilla, Yes, whether God does or does not exist is not about need. I agree that is a very good thing. However, whether or not God exists is a totally different issue that is not need-based...

[Mephistopheles]

Yeah, when I reread my post I thought I should edit it to say "no rules about preaching," but then figured Cranston got the gist and a (lovely) admin like yourself wouldn't catch that small untruth. I can see no transgression passes the ever watchful eyes of the staff here, and I stand dutifully spanked.

You don't get spanked by Charlou until you have at least 100 posts.

And there is a queue.

Wow, it seems I am even lower on the food chain than I thought. I must post whore more.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, when I reread my post I thought I should edit it to say "no rules about preaching," but then figured Cranston got the gist and a (lovely) admin like yourself wouldn't catch that small untruth. I can see no transgression passes the ever watchful eyes of the staff here, and I stand dutifully spanked.

You don't get spanked by Charlou until you have at least 100 posts.

And there is a queue.

Wow, it seems I am even lower on the food chain than I thought. I must post whore more.

We don't like post whores here. Just sayin'.

[LaMont Cranston]

Meph, The single biggest piece of evidence of Dawkins having a meltdown is his letter of outrage and the behavior that has followed. For somebody who championed rational thought, this guy comes off looking like a thin-skinned, uptight, petty, disloyal, emotional trainwreck. As a businessman myself, I think he made a move that has seriously damaged his stature and reputation. I have no way of telling if he realizes how much damage he has done to himself.

Hey, I've got to go eat dinner...I'll try to make it back here later this evening...