Secular Intolerance

[Greta]

You PMd me after the thread was not approved, accusing me of unfair and biased moderation. My reply prompted you to call me a liar.

That is abuse. Thus you were discarded like another any other trash. If you abuse any mods in that way you will achieve the same result. You reaped what you had sown. It's that simple.

By the way, as an experienced member you would normally not need a new thread approved but the mods before me had already placed you on probation for rudeness, with your warnings already in place before the final, decisive one.

This is simply not true. If you had tried to intimidate me as did F4 then I would have told you what to do with your threats against the essence of philosophy. I remember once posting a complaint to Scott about something humorous taken wrongly and we had a little laugh about it. I never had a problem with a mod. As I said, if a secularist mod tries to intimidate me into abandoning my highly respected sources I will tell them in a PM what they can do with their intimidations. If a philosophy site goes secular and abandons the purpose of philosophy, then the only thing worth discussing are the aesthetics of the female behind and possibly the NY Mets.

Do you really believe this to be true? Gawd.

It's very simple. We decided to tighten up standards because there were too many crazy ratbag threads and far too many repeats - bad signal-to-noise ratio. Your one-hundred-and-somethingth thread was rejected because there were a number of other threads similar to it.

As I noted, you were already on probation. You may accuse me (yet again!) of lying but I have never put anyone on probation. I am hopeless with the mod CP and don't even know how to do it . All I could see were options to suspend for various periods or ban, and after the upgrade I couldn't find the suspension options.

Once your precious thread was rejected you PM'd me. You accused me of either atheist or secular bias (not sure if you were on your secular fetish at that point or just railing against atheists). When I explained about the issue with repeat threads you called me a liar. Then I banned you. Unpaid mods do not need take that kind of abuse from feral forum members.

You simply reaped what you had sown. The result of attacking a mod in that way was predictable enough, although it did give you a platform to play the martyr.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Greta:

I don't recall if you posted this before:

The paradox of tolerance, first described by Karl Popper in 1945, is a decision theory paradox. The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

Who says I can't agree with an atheist?

“I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.”

– Christopher Hitchens

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them. But no, apparently they wish to get even so who suffers? The kids naturally.

Hitchens was talking about YOU!
As a tolerant person, I am happy to admit that I am intolerant of religion as it is definitively intolerant by design.

[Nick_A]

Greta:

I don't recall if you posted this before:

Who says I can't agree with an atheist?

“I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.”

– Christopher Hitchens

What a perfect description of these secular intolerants like Greta and F4. You would think that since they had these earlier experiences of lunacy they would learn from them. But no, apparently they wish to get even so who suffers? The kids naturally.

Hitchens was talking about YOU!
As a tolerant person, I am happy to admit that I am intolerant of religion as it is definitively intolerant by design.

Just because you are an admirer of the logic and tolerance of King George III doesn't mean everyone else is.

“I wish nothing but good; therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel.”― King George III

Yes I know how attractive it is to believe in your capacity for tolerance and at the level of a king. But royalty can be wrong too and your need to follow in the footsteps of a king may be misguided.

[Harbal]

Spec Savers.jpg (22.04 KiB) Viewed 4179 times

[Walker]

In compliance with the thread evolution of analysis, here's a tune to whistle while gazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POO9tj27ADM

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote:

Once your precious thread was rejected you PM'd me. You accused me of either atheist or secular bias (not sure if you were on your secular fetish at that point or just railing against atheists). When I explained about the issue with repeat threads you called me a liar. Then I banned you. Unpaid mods do not need take that kind of abuse from feral forum members.

You simply reaped what you had sown. The result of attacking a mod in that way was predictable enough, although it did give you a platform to play the martyr.

Of course all of this is nonsense. Greta is a legend in her own mind and will do what she can to preserve it. Initially I only considered the question of secular intolerance from the point of view of Philosophy Forums. Why should a site professing good intentions towards philosophy allow itself to degenerate into a stronghold for secular intolerance? Soon it became clear that this is really a societal problem. Secular intolerance is becoming a means for spirit killing depriving the young of their natural inclination towards eros creating a void in their hearts which invites the use of drugs to fill. This is applauded as progress.

So how to deal with it? The first obvious method is to show the young that a person does not have to roll over for the threats of secular intolerance and believe what their hearts call them to is somehow wrong or naive. There are alternatives to dominant secular intolerance and the glorification of the superficial. That is why I’ve been gradually posting the interview with Jacob Needleman showing how and why he outgrew his own conditioned reactions. Secular intolerance may diminish the value and benefits of both philosophy and the essence of religion on sites and in educational institutions but we do not have to diminish ourselves as human beings because of it..

[fooloso4]

Greta:

You accused me of either atheist or secular bias (not sure if you were on your secular fetish at that point or just railing against atheists).

This is obvious a lie and a perfect example of secular intolerance. Nick has never ever accused anyone of either atheist or secular bias. You can point to facts, but facts are secular, facts don’t matter, what matters is meaning and only those with objective consciousness can understand meaning. As a secularist you see only the fact that Nick has a behavioral problem, but the meaning it is not his problematical behavior but your problem with theists. And what is the meaning of the fact that new posts and topics by a variety of theists appear frequently on the site you moderate and theists are not being censured? It is obvious to anyone with objective consciousness (yes, I have it now, I verified it with myself), he is hiding behind false claims of secular intolerance.

Wait … sorry Nicky, this got away from me. It did not go as intended. I was trying to help you out buddy.

[Nick_A]

The interview with Prof Needleman continues

http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -needleman

Q: What spiritual or philosophical ideas did you encounter that made you reconsider the teachings of Judeo-Christian and Eastern religions?
A: There were very many such ideas, far too numerous to mention. Here are just a few:
– The idea that God needs man (Judaism) as a uniquely free being who is yet at the same time under supreme obligation.
– The idea that scripture is deeply allegorical and symbolic, with many levels of highly sophisticated philosophical and psychological meanings. Many of my atheistic leanings were due to my literal interpretation of scripture, which, in numerous places paints a horrific picture of a presumed just and loving God.
– The idea that Jesus Christ was a highly developed human being who was a great teacher and that the idea that he was also God needs to be taken in a much more nuanced way than was commonly presented. In Judaism, for example, a highly spiritual human being was often referred to as “son of God,” without thereby implying he was God Himself in the form of a human being.
– The idea that there exists such a thing as genuine mystical experience (as opposed to many self-deceiving claims throughout history) and that these experiences really validate through direct evidence the fundamental teachings of religion.
– The idea that all authentic religions, Western and Eastern and throughout the whole world and human history, converge in genuine mystical experience (which may also be called higher states of consciousness). The differences between religions are only differences involving the pathways that lead toward the practice of directly experiencing higher levels of perception and understanding. All religions are paths to a metaphorical mountain-top variously named Wisdom, enlightenment, self-realization, the kingdom of heaven, righteousness, etc. Differences that lead to violence and persecution are based on a corrupted relationship to the teachings and practices of religion.
Almost all of us have had experiences during our life when we sense with great clarity and power a tremendously heightened state of presence, of being there, an immediate and unforgettable sensation of I am………………………...

I know this is true for me. I’ve learned over time that much of what I had been conditioned to believe were superficial secularized religious concepts on a par with political hypocrisy. I was not only ignorant of the depth of the traditions but also had never experienced the third or vertical conscious direction of thought necessary for acquiring a human rather than a conditioned secular perspective. Fortunately for me I had survived all attempts at spirit killing. I do hope others will be as fortunate in the future.

[Harbal]

Of course all of this is nonsense. Greta is a legend in her own mind and will do what she can to preserve it.

I think you'll find that Greta has a hell of a lot more credibility on this site than you have.

[Nick_A]

Greta:

You accused me of either atheist or secular bias (not sure if you were on your secular fetish at that point or just railing against atheists).

This is obvious a lie and a perfect example of secular intolerance. Nick has never ever accused anyone of either atheist or secular bias. You can point to facts, but facts are secular, facts don’t matter, what matters is meaning and only those with objective consciousness can understand meaning. As a secularist you see only the fact that Nick has a behavioral problem, but the meaning it is not his problematical behavior but your problem with theists. And what is the meaning of the fact that new posts and topics by a variety of theists appear frequently on the site you moderate and theists are not being censured? It is obvious to anyone with objective consciousness (yes, I have it now, I verified it with myself), he is hiding behind false claims of secular intolerance.

Wait … sorry Nicky, this got away from me. It did not go as intended. I was trying to help you out buddy.

Of course what you call theism is welcome. Secularization in whatever form is always welcome to become easy targets for ridicule.

[Harbal]

Of course what you call theism is welcome. Secularization in whatever form is always welcome to become easy targets for ridicule.

When it comes to a target for ridicule you may as well have a bullseye stuck on your forehead, Nick.

[fooloso4]

Nick:

Of course what you call theism is welcome. Secularization in whatever form is always welcome to become easy targets for ridicule.

In case it was not clear enough: it is you who is the target of ridicule. Ironically, you are doing exactly what I ridiculed you for, pretending it is not about your obsessive behavior.The other website deletes posts and warns users who either ridicule the beliefs of others or the person who holds those beliefs. There is no one ridiculing theism on that site.

Here again we see the same old questionable distinction we have come to expect from you: “what you call theism”. It has nothing to do with what I call theism or with your self-appointed position as the arbiter of the distinction between real and fake theism. It is up to whoever is posting to decide what they consider to be theism. The moderator’s job is simply to make sure that posts comply with forum rules, not to decide what is or is not theism as criterion for what is welcome. Play nice and it is welcome. Start new topics again and again with the same content slightly altered is not. Hijacking threads is not.

[Nick_A]

Nick:

Of course what you call theism is welcome. Secularization in whatever form is always welcome to become easy targets for ridicule.

In case it was not clear enough: it is you who is the target of ridicule. Ironically, you are doing exactly what I ridiculed you for, pretending it is not about your obsessive behavior.The other website deletes posts and warns users who either ridicule the beliefs of others or the person who holds those beliefs. There is no one ridiculing theism on that site.

Here again we see the same old questionable distinction we have come to expect from you: “what you call theism”. It has nothing to do with what I call theism or with your self-appointed position as the arbiter of the distinction between real and fake theism. It is up to whoever is posting to decide what they consider to be theism. The moderator’s job is simply to make sure that posts comply with forum rules, not to decide what is or is not theism as criterion for what is welcome. Play nice and it is welcome. Start new topics again and again with the same content slightly altered is not. Hijacking threads is not.

I support the rules. You call offering an opposing point of view highjacking a thread. Of course it is not but offering the sacred within the domain of the secular is intolerable. Give me an example of one of my posts that defies forum rules. You can't since I have no need to do so. I offer my ideas and support them by quoting highly respected sources in both philosophy and religion. Unfortunately they are not secularized so must attract scorn and disturb the peace. As Simone said, a person must be willing to annoy the great beast. When I want to get laid I'll be Mr. Wonderful. When I want to share on philosophy, I'll be real regardless of how intolerable it is to secularists. Doing anything else is meaningless.

[Nick_A]

Of course what you call theism is welcome. Secularization in whatever form is always welcome to become easy targets for ridicule.

When it comes to a target for ridicule you may as well have a bullseye stuck on your forehead, Nick.

Thanks for the compliment but I'm not worthy. I am of course far below those like Jesus and Socrates who were worth having bullseyes stuck on their heads by the Great Beast. But I appreciate the thought.

[Harbal]

Thanks for the compliment but I'm not worthy.

Trust me, Nick, you are.

I am of course far below those like Jesus and Socrates

Yes, you are far below them.

But I appreciate the thought.

I think it's the attention you're getting that you appreciate. You've never had as much notice taken of you in your life, have you? It may not be the kind of attention you would have preferred but it's better than being ignored, isn't it.