The complete thread that got me banned without warning from Free Domain Radio

[Johnson]

I hadn't commented on this for a very long time, but I was reminded of my unceremonious and surreptitious banning from FDR recently upon being pleased to see the debate video being posted to youtube.

Anyway, here is the thread... It encompasses ALL my posts on the FDR forums.



You may see the beginning of this now heavily edited thread here:

Although, since it has been made entirely dishonest through selective editing after my banning - I'm not sure it's worth it.

eulercircles:

I was a little frustrated by the Porcfest debate because it was quite obvious that the other guy (Johnson?) was just playing a language game.

Of all the comments here - I would like to address an apology to you. (and hopefully my comments won't spark off an agnostic / atheist debate, since that topic seems to be clearly a dead horse on these forums)

My goal in my debate with Stefan was not to make Atheists "accept the truth" of Agnosticism; So - any efforts there - were, as you aptly put it, at best, a language game. One that made me feel, quite frankly, like I needed a shower after the debate. Afterall, in order to play the part of the Agnostic, when arguing with an Atheist, the Agnostic has to take a somewhat theistic stance in order to defend the possibility of some kind of "higher power".

My reason for claiming agnosticism (and that is the full extent to which I am Agnostic, and it really doesn't extend beyond that claim despite any arguments you might have heard from in that far more public debate) is that when I was acting as an Atheist having discussions with Theists - I felt like it was the exact same circular conversation OVER and OVER and OVER. It was like walking someone through a script, only that at the end of the script, they would just start over again with the same questions, never getting anywhere. I felt akin to banging my head against a brick wall.

So, while playing Agnostic in a debate against an Atheist makes me feel like a dirty dirty man, playing Agnostic in a debate with a Theist grants me a wonderful feeling of liberation. Instead of walking through a script wherein the same exact things are said over and over again - I am immediately able to say

"OK, I accept this possibility that the universe may have been created - but WHY do you believe THIS particular minute detail?" IE: Why is "God" male?
Why are there 72 virgins? Why do you believe there was a man who would walk on water - have you ever seen that? 

Instead of that person going through THEIR standard repertoire of "Atheist defense" arguments that they have undoubtedly spent silly amounts of time researching or formulating... I've sidestepped all of that and gotten that person to immediately begin engaging in some kinds of rational questioning, as well as using their OWN thoughts and arguments, versus regurgitating the stuff they've read on the internet.

I largely agree that even if you are an Agnostic that accepts the possibility of an "intelligent creator" that there are PLENTY of other things to be questioned in EVERY religion about their claims as to nature of the universe. If you aren't questioning those - then you ARE cowardly. Agnostics need to be engaging in that conversation just as much as Atheists. Religions, ALL Religions - MUST be questioned.

I am hoping that at least SOME Agnostics took away from that debate a sense of purpose and sufficient cause to start actively engaging theists in theological debate, in the same way that you would if someone walked into the room claiming to have just ridden a Pigasus to get there.

Johnson, welcome to the forums, and thank you for your honesty.

My big beef is that if two people are going to have a debate, it kind of defeats the purpose if the most important term being considered somehow must remain ill-defined. It seems to me if that's the case, the gig cannot even get off the ground. So why bother?

People have different ideas of God, but they themselves will not say God is undefined or undefinable. They may not themselves know how to define God, if you're talking with a layman, but that does not mean his or her religion itself does not have somespecific conception of what God is. He/she may just be ignorant on the matter. Theists may want to define God in their own way, but when you make God so abstract that it cannot be defined, it's pretty clear, to me anyway, that the person is just not interested in debating. At least he's safe with a nebulous concept (if it indeed is a concept - it seems to me to be incoherent). He/she gets to claim that perhaps there's a god of some sort, but doesn't have to defend it with rational arguments. That's my take, anyway.

I don't want to spark a debate here, as you expressed you did not wish it either - but how do you address one other comment I made?: That the agnostic assumption is that a belief (here, the belief that no god exists) must be 100% certain, without the possibility of being wrong, in order to be claimed to be known? As Daniel Dennett says, "I'm as sure about it as I can be about anything." Unfortunately, he also went on to say you cannot prove a negative, which is not really true (again, the problem there is the inability to properly define). You, of course, have every right not to answer. I ask with all due respect, and in the hopes that you will answer, however.

I also realize that some ideas of 'god' are impersonal, like the Buddhist idea of Brahman, and Advaita Vedanta. These do not appear to me to be theisms. A theistic god is, at least, a person possessing consciousness and knowledge. To me, these ideas are atheistic.

Once again, welcome.

Well, First EulerCircles, you are replying to stuff that I said in the debate, and not really to my post that I just made... but that said, I will still attempt to formulate an answer.

You talk about 'the layman that doesn't have a defined view of God', as though that is common. In my experience, it is not at all common. Most theists that I've spoken with have very definitive answers for their beliefs about their deity. Within a religion, and even withing a particular sect of a religion, my discovery has been that there is ALMOST ZERO coherent consistency of belief as to the properties of a deity when they aren't easily remembered or outlined by scripture.

So, at that point... You've begun someone on the process of QUESTIONING. Ah - the first step. The first step toward rationality is to start asking questions and actually searching for truth....

Now... as you put it - when you "make God so abstract it cannot be defined" what have you done?

Well, let's walk through THAT thought. 

So, the agnostic proposition is that you can never be 100% certain... Atheists say they are definitely 100% certain - but in order to GET there - any CONVERTED Atheist (and probably most atheists in general) had to at SOME point be LESS than 100% certain. So - becoming atheist is a process - and I would suggest that babies are born agnostic - (or weak atheists) because they have zero understanding of religion, or god, or anything of the sort with respect to those concepts. So - Children growing up have to make choices with regards to beliefs as they are exposed to knowledge...

If you have no concept of fire, you don't know whether or not it will hurt you until you have experienced touching something hot, and then you can form a belief. 

So in that process of becoming an Atheist, one asks themselves questions and uses logic and reasoning and finally reach the point where one understands that the concept called God is irrational nonsense.

SO - My personal goal here... yeah wellllll here it is... I would really like to see Religion... All of it... every last one... every irrational and silly belief from Astral Projection to Zoroastrianism wiped out. Of course, this is never going to happen in my lifetime but that doesn't stop me from the noble process of trying to flip the light switch of reason on head by head.

So, if becoming an Atheist is a process - which I believe it to be, and I've had extensive conversation with many former theists - then I believe that the most efficient way to bring a theist over to being a rational logical being is by having that person question THEIR OWN false premises.

So, if I ask enough questions to the point of where someone has "made God so abstact that it cannot be defined" anymore... then taking the next step in saying that "God does not, and cannot exist" is MUCH smaller.

Now - if there is SUCH a wide chasm between you and the theist that they perceive - The theist shuts down. If they say "Well, I believe in this magical man that healed people and turned water into wine and..." you interrupt telling them how ridiculous their ideas are and that theist knows that you don't even have the slightest inkling of understanding where they are coming from... they shut down and see it as a pointless exercise to try and have a discussion with you.

Whereas... If you have established the BASIC PREMISE with the theist, and the ONE TENET that most hold MOST DEARLY which is that the universe was CREATED - then you will ALWAYS have a basis for conversation. An agreement point to back up to - and start over. The conversation is never closed. You can always say "well, I accept the possibility that the universe might have been created, but why do you believe that Jesus walked on water - how does that make any sense...?" I think chipping away at smaller beliefs leads to much larger questions.

In a sense - I kind of see it as being similar to when a Psychologist temporarily plays along with the delusions of the Schizophrenic in order to help that person get treatment...

Now, maybe 1% of the population experiences fullblown schizophrenia, but a much larger portion of humanity shows quite a few similar symptoms. I think questioning irrationality and trying to help people see things a little more clearly is just the right thing to do.

I'm not really concerned with the beliefs of agnostics to be honest. I don't really care if there are people out there that aren't 100% sure of something. They aren't the ones that are going to lead the march to cut out my tongue for questioning their imaginary friend... and they also aren't the one's who have already ensured that I can't go to the local store and buy alcohol on Sunday.  If I could make all THEISTS into AGNOSTICS who live their lives no differently from atheists... Well, at that point I can tell you that the question of certainty really doesn't concern me much at all. If that makes sense. 

Johnson, is this why you get to be a radio talk show host, because you can talk a lot without necessarily saying much at all? Or is it just because your voice is easy on the ears?

Well then, my conversation with you is over. In the future, you really shouldn't blame your own reading comprehension issues on others.

I don't think there is a problem with my reading comprehension. As I am sure many others here who have been in this discussion all along are aware of, your entire approach is characteristic of the WHOLE issue to begin with. There is no clear language; no concise and substantive arguments. There are just dodgy, apparently empty sentences. We've gotten the same from other self-styled 'agnostics' who take issue with self-styled 'atheists', and it was the same story in your debate with Stef.

I apologize if my comments appear to you to be unfair or 'mean'. But I will not accept that they are inaccurate. This is not a rhetorical device on my part, and it is certainly not me singling you out and trying to beat you up. If I am seen as a callous or unsavory fellow for unabashedly pointing out the truth, what we can all see before our very eyes, then so be it. I guess I am just not always patient.

Well, since you at least made the piss-poor attempt at an apology, I will continue with the same level of congeniality. THEN I will be done with you.

 

I don't think there is a problem with my reading comprehension.

Of course you don't. I don't think you pay enough attention to anything that isn't your own self important drivel to actually grasp the fact that you have missed what is going on.

As I am sure many others here who have been in this discussion all along are aware of, your entire approach is characteristic of the WHOLE issue to begin with. There is no clear language; no concise and substantive arguments. There are just dodgy, apparently empty sentences. We've gotten the same from other self-styled 'agnostics' who take issue with self-styled 'atheists', and it was the same story in your debate with Stef.

And this is why, you sir, are a MORON. I AM NOT AN AGNOSTIC you reading incompetent buffoon. I made that clear using "concise language" up above, that was apparently not concise enough for YOU, I made it clear that even PRETENDING to be an agnostic while debating an ATHEIST made me feel dirty, and also said for you to address my posts HERE and NOT the debate with Stef, as that's not particularly relevant to what I am saying here. You are apparently incapable of doing that, and that's why I no longer want anything to do with you. There's something not right about you. You're a CREEP.

I apologize if my comments appear to you to be unfair or 'mean'. But I will not accept that they are inaccurate. This is not a rhetorical device on my part, and it is certainly not me singling you out and trying to beat you up. If I am seen as a callous or unsavory fellow for unabashedly pointing out the truth, what we can all see before our very eyes, then so be it. I guess I am just not always patient.

You're an ASS is what you are, and your DISINGENUOUS apology reveals you for being a dishonest *** who is merely trying to engage me in some kind of a dick-waving contest because you THOUGHT that I was an Agnostic and that you could boost your feeble ego by repeating Stef's arguments from the debate and congratulate yourself after 'winning' an internet debate.  I'm NOT an Agnostic though - and what you heard was me PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE for 3 hours for RADIO ENTERTAINMENT - because I *LIE* to Religious people.  I'm sorry you are STILL having trouble figuring that out even though I've spelled it out already.

I also enjoy your asinine attempt at collectivizing people around you to again puff up your own pathetic ego. "Many others... are aware"  "We can all see"... Don't try to speak for anyone but your own churlish self when you try to take ME down a peg.

If you want to continue this conversation - I EXPECT A GENUINE and heartfelt apology. I don't expect some ego ridden nonsense full of weasely and self congratulatory language. If you don't want to continue the conversation, and base it off of what has ACTUALLY been said - then feel free to forgo a reply. I think enough time has already been wasted here.

[Johnson]

Oi, the last few posts have been so aggressive; calm down a bit, there's no reason to get angry. I'll attempt to add some more constructive feedback on the issue of Agnosticism and Atheism.

 

 First, I'll clearly define the terms I'll be using that might be considered vague:

1. God- A sentient being which is capable of supernatural phenomena, such as the creation of matter or energy from a void, manipulation of environments or circumstances through some form of power which all currently known lifeforms are incapable (Such as creating bountiful crops or devastating plagues at will, calling lightning from the skies, etc.), creating the outcomes usually ascribed to chance or luck for individuals or groups, etc. This definition fits most of the qualities ascribed to gods from various poly- and mono-theistic religions that I'm familiar with, so hopefully this will be acceptable to everyone.

2. Belief- The chance a sentient individual puts forth for the likelihood of an outcome either having occurred or will occur.

 

 What follows are my beliefs in regards to gods:

 

I am exceedingly close to 100% certain a god is not necessary to explain the existence of anything I am aware. However, I do not reject the possibility that a god has or currently does exist, though I do put it as being extremely unlikely (99.9% belief of Atheism, .1% belief of gods); for example, of the .1% belief I have of gods, a large portion would consist of a circumstance similar to the following:

All of the world which I have experienced was only a very advanced game I have been playing in reality- to gain as much from the experience as I could, I stored my memories of reality away and began playing or perhaps am simply an NPC; this game has programmers and staff capable of doing fixes while the game is still going on without disrupting the players too much, but the programmers would be capable of feats even the most unlikely non-contradictory definition of god might do (Creation of sentient being, etc.)- thus, it would be fair to call the programmers gods from a players perspective.

The only real qualms I have with Atheism is if it goes so far as to reject even the remote possibility of gods (100% belief of Atheism), especially when the term of god is usually not defined alongside it. I'm fine with being considered either Agnostic or Atheist- I am very sure that gods, especially specific ones with claims of attributes and actions (And 100% sure of contradictory ones), don't exist, but it is different from an absolute 100% belief or certainty. I use the term 'Very Atheistic Agnostic' when describing myself, as I feel it best describes my beliefs.

eulercircles:
I don't think there is a problem with my reading comprehension. As I am sure many others here who have been in this discussion all along are aware of, your entire approach is characteristic of the WHOLE issue to begin with. There is no clear language; no concise and substantive arguments. There are just dodgy, apparently empty sentences. We've gotten the same from other self-styled 'agnostics' who take issue with self-styled 'atheists', and it was the same story in your debate with Stef.

I apologize if my comments appear to you to be unfair or 'mean'. But I will not accept that they are inaccurate. This is not a rhetorical device on my part, and it is certainly not me singling you out and trying to beat you up. If I am seen as a callous or unsavory fellow for unabashedly pointing out the truth, what we can all see before our very eyes, then so be it. I guess I am just not always patient.

Who exactly is 'we all'? And why do you find it necessary to invoke the opinions of other people, who, even if they agree with you, haven't deemed it worthwhile to say so? Though his posts were relatively long, there were a couple of substantive points in there, which you haven't yet addressed. Though as he already pointed out, you didn't even read his posts thoroughly enough to learn that he's not actually even an agnostic.

I'd like to address your earlier point about agnostics requiring that beliefs are 100% certain. First of all, strong agnostics may claim this, but weak agnostics generally make personal statements about their own knowledge, so that statement isn't universal. But secondly, a belief, in my opinion, is only a belief because it is not actually known. I don't believe in America; I've been there, I've touched it. Given the premise that my reality is the reality, America exists. This premise is hardly water-tight, but I don't think anybody here will have a problem with it. To me, this constitutes knowledge. I can't similarly claim knowledge that God does not exist (as a creator, not as a personal, omniscient, omnipotent God) because I have no logical arguments which discount the possibility, and since I'm unwilling to rule out the existence of something, just because I haven't experienced it, or can't imagine how it could exist, I can't possibly claim that as knowledge. I don't see what's unclear about that.

[Johnson]

The rules of the FDR forum state that:

Politeness
The board does not have to be as elegant and repressed as a Victorian tea party, but certain civilized rules must be respected:

No swearing.
No ALL CAPS!
Please try to focus criticism on the theory, and not the individual.
Please do your research before responding to factual posts. If you are refuting particular facts, please supply links to reputable sources.
Please do not respond to a post when you are angry -- take 10 minutes, figure out what is really bothering you, and then respond if you must.
Remember, if you insult someone's intelligence or integrity, but continue to debate with him, you are escalating for no reason whatsoever. If you truly believe that someone is dumb, or dishonest, it makes no sense to debate him. I don't agree with this - but it is an FDR rule.
Passive aggressive posts are strongly discouraged. If you don't know what passive aggression is, please research the term before posting.
When responding to a post, please remember that simply stating that the poster is wrong is a complete waste of time. To correct someone, you must point out an error in his reasoning or facts, and supply evidence.
Please respect your feelings. If you find that a thread is becoming unpleasant, please disengage. If you feel your temper rising with someone, please stop responding to him. Anger and escalation will never lead us to the truth. The truth can only result from a positive and challenging mutual exploration of facts and principles. Escalation is the responsibility of both parties. I was the only one banned - without warning.
Please avoid accusing someone of bad intentions without any evidence. “Oh, so whenever you are wrong, you just run away!” “Oh, you're just changing the topic because you can't handle the truth!” Even if it turns out to be true, this kind of hostility will never bring enlightenment.
Please avoid “Internet courage.” Before posting, try to imagine speaking the words you are typing directly to the person, as if he were standing right in front of you. Also imagine that he is very large.

[Johnson]

I just find it incredibly interesting that this dude was able to insult me, talk down to me, and engage in open "passive aggression" that wasn't really all that passive - and yet when I point it out - I'm the one banned, even though there were posts immediately agreeing with my points. Oh well....

The entire thread is here and online again in it's entirely because I don't need anyone editing my comments to misrepresent them - and my comments on the FDR board were selectively edited, which I find somewhat morally offensive. I can understand deleting a thread, or deleting someone entirely from a thread, but editing out PART of what they said and changing the tone and meaning of the thread is pretty sketchy.

[BonerJoe]

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Stefan-Molyneux-Meme/102520209805252?ref=ts

[Johnson]

fixed your link for you. It was broken.

[Johnson]

Heh, some of those memes are amusing... I don't agree with how they portray Stefan for the most part, but that would be a problem I would envy... heh I wouldn't mind a meme about me.

I am amused by the few that point out how others have obviously received overzealous banning from FDR forums. 
 

[Cognitive Dissident]

Meh.  "Passive-aggressive."  There goes 98% of the libertarian webz.

[Riddler]

painful.

if i owned ANY forum and you started posting that shit, I'D-a banned you too.

religious talk belongs on the 700 club.

[YixilTesiphon]

Also, that shit's impossible to read with the colors you've chosen, even if I were inclined to.

I just realized the forum purge means the Book of Johnson might be gone. Damn.

[dalebert]

They do seem a bit trigger-happy with the ban hammer there.

[Riddler]

They do seem a bit trigger-happy with the ban hammer there.

two paragraphs into johnsons ambien-speak, i can't blame them.........
people were , no doubt, whacking their heads on their keyboards, having suddenly lapsed into a narcoleptic-like coma

[libertylover]

Also, that shit's impossible to read with the colors you've chosen, even if I were inclined to.

I just realized the forum purge means the Book of Johnson might be gone. Damn.

I accidentally banned someone on a forum once.  I just wanted to give them a time out and thought you could un-ban them later, opps.   I was informed the proper method for temp banning but the damage was done.