If we don't like the way stahrwe operates, I'd recommend that we'd need first not to engage him. As long as we do respond to him, he is engaging with us in enough of a dialogue that we can't blame just him, and under those circumstances I'd be against banning him. If he were to lose all his respondents yet begin to spam the site in a completely non-responsive way, then banning would be appropriate. We have another choice, and that is to find another site if we feel that his presence casts too big a shadow on BT. At least one member, sorely missed, appears recently to have done that. Not a good outcome for BT, but it's the reality as I see it.

That's true Dwill, and VOR pointed towards that very thing earlier. If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

i have been trying that myself, but now and then some idiocy jumps off the screen and pleads to be head-butt into the pavement.

No, not banning, I would hate for that to happen, because I haven't met anyone quite like Stahrwe....I can't imagine what mental state someone might be in to behave in such a peculiar way.

Maybe, he needs to get it out of his system.....I just don't think we are being very kind by encouraging him.

johnson1010 wrote:

Stahrwe said, without a glimmer of irony or Epiphany:

But by collecting a large quantity of evidence usually, a point is reached where the evidence in one direction is overwhelming."

re:
biblical error
age of the earth
evolution of life
Christianity’s status as a religion
falsehood of creationism
in-accuracy of biblical creation account
in-accuracy of biblical flood story
your lack of understanding of logic and the application thereof
categorical equivalent of Christian myths to those of other religions / fairy tales
categorical equivalent of prayer and magic
really, really believing a thing does not equate to knowledge

anyone want to jump in here to point star to relevant topics where the preponderance of evidence looms toweringly high over his contrary baseless assertions?

The above might be probative if they were based on facts and not self-serving opinion. It might also be probative if you actually had facts to support your position. For example, you can't tell me how old the earth is because you don't know and neither do I. You have a logical flaw in that you dismiss prayer without evidence and equate the idea with 'magic' despite numerous times when I have explained the difference. Your dismissal of the Bible is also not based on substanative information or even personal experience. Instead it is based on opinions of others and books whose assertions are not even wafer thin but wrong, TEoG for example. When I point out the weaknesses in a 'discussion' of the book the reaction of FreeThinkers isn't a lively discussion but an attempt to pigeonhole my objections in an off line discussion which everyone can avoid. What's up with that? I guess it's open seaon on the Bible but Bible critics don't even have to have basic fact right. Amazing. If that's the best atheists can muster Christians can just write them off. Remember Dawkins anti-God campaign? The slogan was, "There probably is not god, so relax." The worlds greatest atheist is only brazen enough to say there PROBABLY is no god?

Interbane wrote:

You're going to buy a new car. You have two options, both cost $25,000. The cars appear identical but one is from a company which has been around for 80 years is known for its service and support and has a repuration for reliability, the other is a brand new company. The car is from their first production run. The company's financial strenghth is shakey and ther quality and service have never been tested. I suppose you would rate these two equally acceptable so as not to commit the appeal to tradition fallacy. Giver me a break.

Cars aren't propositions or claims to the truth. Is this what passes for convincing reasoning in your circles? Let's try sticking to logic rather than appealing to irrelevant and unrelated examples.

And I am accused of dodging. You object to the example because the answer is obvious and it is very relevant to the discussion. You are claiming that Scientilogy is as legitimate as Christianity. Scientology is the new company, Christianity is the established company. The answer is so obvious that you can't do anything but attempt to eject the question. Objection will not be sustained.

Why on earth are you bringning up relics?

interbane wrote:Do you have some prejudice with the word? I mean it in the general sense, everything that people build or do in the name of their beliefs.

If that is what you mean you are showing your ignorance of church history. Relics are not what you described above.

You are flat wrong here. Courts attempt to get at the truth all the time. In court evidence is presented and evaluated. The problem is that evidence is not always perfect. But by collecting a large quantity of evidence usually, a point is reached where the evidence in one direction is overwhelming.

interbane wrote:I am not flat out wrong here you idiot. YOU ARE WRONG! Without a doubt, absolutely wrong. You aren't using your damned brain.

They are legal concepts called:
Preponderance of the evidence.
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Beyond the shadow of a doubt

interbane wrote:The evidence. This massive amount of evidence. It's an arrow. And what it points to is... people believe something. And that's it. Nothing else. It does NOT say anything about whether that belief is true or false. Read that sentence again. A thousand times. Stop being incorrigible.

So, if the preponderance of the eivdence points to something, what is it telling us about the thing except that it is true?

I drop a rock 1,000 times and 1,000 times it falls to the ground
If I say, "I believe that a dropped rock will fall to the ground," that belief is not true?

At some point, after the millionth hospital has been built, and the millionth orphan has been rescued, and the millionth drunk helped back to sobriety, and the millionth Christian martyred someone standing on the corner yelling, "ad populum fallacy" isn't convincing it is just pathetic.

interbane wrote:So you think you are correct and that the fallacy doesn't apply? Really? You're committing a fallacy, and you think that what you believe MUST be true, so therefore the fallacy MUST be wrong. Here's your sign.

I missed the sign, whatever it was supposed to be.
If you will take a deep breath, it isn't just the hospitals and history,
It is also the Bible (which you reject)
The testimony of the people (which you reject)
and numerous other things layered on top of each other.

Are you familiar with the psychological term, projection?

interbane wrote:I have a better question. Are YOU familiar with the psychological term projection?

Ah, that's the same question except you capitalized 'you'.

Penelope wrote:Why are we doing this?

interbane wrote:The things he says are false beyond the shadow of a doubt. So much so, that every time I see such a false comment, I think "all I have to do is show him how his thinking is wrong and he'll shed the delusion." I wouldn't think it's possible for someone to keep the fight going even after he's shown to be illogical. The depth of delusion is amazing, honestly. I'm not sure why I try.

The answer is simple, many people on BT are saying untrue and baseless things about my family. Those people are not willing to discuss those things rationally and reasonably and have taken extreme positions which are unsupportable. People certainly have a right to doubt and to question, but to reject the Bible, claim Jesus never existed, and charge nothing but evil and vileness to Christianity; that is a call to us to stand up to that. As long as people like Sam Harris are allowed to make outrageous statements about Christainity should we not have the right to answer those charges in the forums where they are heralded? As I write this there is an ongoing discussion of one of SH's books taking place on BT. A discussion I have been told not to participate in. Now, it is objected to that I participate here.

And I am the one who has been called a hypocrit?

lady of shallot wrote:

Penelope wrote:Stahrwe has obviously made a very generous financial contribution to Booktalk.

And that is good.

But I wonder why?

He posts on here, gets verbally attacked from all directions, which I find quite distressing, even if I agree that he is delusional.......it is still a distressing situation.

Why are we doing this?

Penelope, Stahrwe made a generous contribution to the Cleveland Boys Home. Not to Booktalk. The verbal attacking is a two way street. Why do you find it distressing? Stahrwe does not. I do not. Frustrating, yes. Irritating, yes. Any one of us individually can opt to drop out of the discussion. Don't you find it interesting that Stahrwe persists in trying to convince the majority here that he is correct when we so obviously do not agree with him? Why are there no other people of his religious persuasion who have joined him? Remember Dawn who was here for a short while and IMHO under the impression that we just were not familiar with the Bible or the tenets of the various Christian sects and faiths? She is no longer posting. there is something special about Stahrwe that makes him so dogged in this. I do not know what it is. It has occurred to me that perhaps he is just toying with us? Or maybe trying to win a bet or something. I don't know. Maybe longer time members would have some insight.

Biblical knowledge has nothing to do with it. Honestly most 3rd graders who have been to Sunday School are at a high enough level to hold there own on BT. Dawn is on vacation. She may be back, may not. Joe is busy being a pastor so he hasn't been able to be active. The reason most Christians don't hang around is because atheists on BT do their best to be nasty and hostile to drive them away. If this was my opinion I would expect to be chastised for it but go back and read some of the things said to and about me when I joined BT. It was suggested that I be the subject of a psychological experiment to see how long I would stay around. I won't go into the threats made.

Frankly, I hang around for a couple of reasons, one is that I think BT has a huge potential to make CO well off, not rich but comfortable.

DWill wrote:If we don't like the way stahrwe operates, I'd recommend that we'd need first not to engage him. As long as we do respond to him, he is engaging with us in enough of a dialogue that we can't blame just him, and under those circumstances I'd be against banning him. If he were to lose all his respondents yet begin to spam the site in a completely non-responsive way, then banning would be appropriate. We have another choice, and that is to find another site if we feel that his presence casts too big a shadow on BT. At least one member, sorely missed, appears recently to have done that. Not a good outcome for BT, but it's the reality as I see it.

A better outcome for BT is if people of faith are welcome into robust but respectful discussions.

tat tvam asi wrote:That's true Dwill, and VOR pointed towards that very thing earlier. If no one ever quoted Stahrwe's posts and ignored him when he quotes the rest of us posting to one another and tries to butt into our posts, the troll will eventually die of starvation. I've seen a few trolls die like that at the Joseph Campbell foundation.

Maybe they just need some encouragement.

deleted duplicate