|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 13, 2011 23:09:55 GMT
Well you can be ticked all you want at me but as you belong to the worse group of mass murders in history Dave it seems your problem is a self inflicted one.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 13, 2011 23:47:49 GMT
Why? All I ask as an atheist is a level playing field, I'm no fan of krkey1 as he provoked me into a post that ended up with me upsetting captainzman. I agree with attacking the ball not the man but I also throw in a little dig in while I'm at it. Doesn't that leave the person I'm debating with at a disavantage? I'll be interested in your thoughts on the issue. I'm not James, but as a long-time member of this forum, I have strong views on this matter. 1. Religious and anti-religious forums tend to get nasty at times, as people of both sides get upset at not being able to convince their opponents, who they regard as not only wrong but evil, culpable, illogical, delusional, or whatever. This forum has long been a place where we avoid that stuff and try to treat each other at least civilly, if not as friends. It is possible to disagree strongly but still respect each other and remain on good terms - we all do it in life so why not on a forum? 2. Things are, in my view, slipping a little lately. For that we all need to take some responsibility, hence my involvement here. 3. This is a christian forum, owned by a christian, but where other views are welcome if they keep to the above ethos. I imagine James as owner wants it to be a good advertisement for christianity, not something to be ashamed of. Christians have clear teachings in the scriptures to treat other people with respect, to show love not scorn, to try to think the best of others and want the best for them. We are human so we don't always live up to those ideals, but they are not really negotiable in my view. So I think we can reasonably expect and ask christians to keep to the ethos, so the forum properly represents christianity. 4. On the other hand, atheists don't have any such shared scriptures and teachings, but each chooses their own behaviour according to the social norms and individual conviction. And if they behave badly, it doesn't reflect badly on christianity. So James cannot reasonably expect exactly the same behaviour, and, in his words, cuts them some slack. Nevertheless, unbelievers who act like trolls or discourteously have been asked to leave the forum, and while I cannot recall any christians being asked to leave, they would be if they behaved the same. 5. In the end, it would be best if we all moderated our own behaviour to the standard expected on this forum. If we find someone difficult, it may be best to simply stop discussing with them - that would send a far more effective message than being increasingly rude. So that was a rather ponderous explanation, but I hope you can see how it should work, in my view at least. Thanks for the question.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 14, 2011 1:31:21 GMT
Why? All I ask as an atheist is a level playing field, I'm no fan of krkey1 as he provoked me into a post that ended up with me upsetting captainzman. I agree with attacking the ball not the man but I also throw in a little dig in while I'm at it. Doesn't that leave the person I'm debating with at a disavantage? I'll be interested in your thoughts on the issue. I'm not James, but as a long-time member of this forum, I have strong views on this matter. 1. Religious and anti-religious forums tend to get nasty at times, as people of both sides get upset at not being able to convince their opponents, who they regard as not only wrong but evil, culpable, illogical, delusional, or whatever. This forum has long been a place where we avoid that stuff and try to treat each other at least civilly, if not as friends. It is possible to disagree strongly but still respect each other and remain on good terms - we all do it in life so why not on a forum? 2. Things are, in my view, slipping a little lately. For that we all need to take some responsibility, hence my involvement here. 3. This is a christian forum, owned by a christian, but where other views are welcome if they keep to the above ethos. I imagine James as owner wants it to be a good advertisement for christianity, not something to be ashamed of. Christians have clear teachings in the scriptures to treat other people with respect, to show love not scorn, to try to think the best of others and want the best for them. We are human so we don't always live up to those ideals, but they are not really negotiable in my view. So I think we can reasonably expect and ask christians to keep to the ethos, so the forum properly represents christianity. 4. On the other hand, atheists don't have any such shared scriptures and teachings, but each chooses their own behaviour according to the social norms and individual conviction. And if they behave badly, it doesn't reflect badly on christianity. So James cannot reasonably expect exactly the same behaviour, and, in his words, cuts them some slack. Nevertheless, unbelievers who act like trolls or discourteously have been asked to leave the forum, and while I cannot recall any christians being asked to leave, they would be if they behaved the same. 5. In the end, it would be best if we all moderated our own behaviour to the standard expected on this forum. If we find someone difficult, it may be best to simply stop discussing with them - that would send a far more effective message than being increasingly rude. So that was a rather ponderous explanation, but I hope you can see how it should work, in my view at least. Thanks for the question. Cheers unkleE, It at least given me a perspective on the procedure, I'm more used to atheist forums were anarchy prevails. All ideas are welcome and then agreed with or shot down with added vitriol. I love this by the way. I do try to moderate my own behaviour when I'm here though you must admit some of your Christians are behaving in a unChrist way.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 14, 2011 1:47:49 GMT
I was under the opinion that Christians were horrible immoral people and now you are chiding me for being unChrist like for simply bring up some facts of history your side really, really wants to disappear. How odd and whinny.
On Christian forums ideas actually have to have evidence, so I can see why you are having a hard time here.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Feb 14, 2011 7:54:49 GMT
Please can this childishness stop?I think most of us regulars have friends across the divide,so to speak.I have never thought Christians were generally horrible immoral people and I certainly don't recognise myself as being part of a worse group of mass murderers just because I disbelieve.Unklee's 4th point is particularly well made IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 14, 2011 10:52:59 GMT
Nah! Not really I have seen too many.... homosexuals hanged, Schoolgirls having acid throw in their face for getting an education and/or not covering their faces. People who are dead or had their limbs blown off because they where a different religion or different sect of that religion. I'm sorry if anything I say offends you but we really need to get away from your beliefs so that the world is a healthier place for all people to live. Man. sounds like Merseyside has got a lot rougher (and more multicultural) since I left the UK.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 14, 2011 11:10:59 GMT
Irving is an interesting case as I remember asking an historian about this and he said basically the same as Humphrey did. I will have to ask Humphrey for a link (citation.) On Irving having a decent enough reputation in academia ? I'm actually quoting one of my tutors at uni but you can find similar sentiments in 'Lying about Hitler' – Richard E Evans P 8-9 Academic historians with a general knowledge of modem history had indeed mostly been quite generous to Irving, even where they had found reason to criticize him or disagree with his views. Paul Addison, for example, an expert on British history in the Second World War, had concluded that while Irving was “usually a Colossus of research, he is often a schoolboy in judgment.”
Reviewing The War Path in 1978, R. Hinton Thornas, professor of German at Birmingham University, whose knowledge of the social and political context of twentieth-century German literature was both deep and broad, dismissed the book as “unoriginal” and its “claims to novelty” as“ ill-based.”“Much of Irving’s argument,” wrote Sir Martin Gilbert, official biographer of Churchill, about Hitler’s War in 1977, “is based on speculation.”But he also praised the book as “a scholarly work, the fruit of a decade of wide researches.”” The military historian Sir Michael Howard, subsequently Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, praised on the other hand the very considerable merits” of The War Path, and declared that Irving was “at his best as a professional historian demanding documentary proof for popularly-held beliefs.”In similar fashion, the eminent American specialist on modern Germany, Gordon A. Craig, reviewing Irving’s Goehbels in the New York Review of Books in 1996, seemed at first glance full of praise for Irving’s work:
‘Silencing Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher. . , . Hitler’s War . . .remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War, and, as such, indispensable for all students of that conflict. . . . It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretationst hat appear, however implausible they maybe, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma or shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have a indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.’
P14 The right-wing historian Andrew Roberts noted that “several distinguished historians, all of whom asked not to be named, told me how much they admired Irving’s tenacity in uncovering new material from Nazi sources.”
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 14, 2011 12:01:46 GMT
Please can this childishness stop?I think most of us regulars have friends across the divide,so to speak. I second the motion. In fact I'm wondering if the forces of light and darkness (make the identification as you wish) should join in a new movement: Christians and Renegades Against Personal insults on this forum
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Feb 14, 2011 12:02:08 GMT
Please can this childishness stop?I think most of us regulars have friends across the divide,so to speak.I have never thought Christians were generally horrible immoral people and I certainly don't recognise myself as being part of a worse group of mass murderers just because I disbelieve.Unklee's 4th point is particularly well made IMHO. I'd like to second that. The level of discussion on this board has descended to a level that is beginning to concern me. I would ask both KrKey1 and davedodo007 to moderate their comments. If they want to insult each other, please take it outside (ie to email or another board). It is also not acceptable to describe someone who does not post here as dishonest or tantamount to a holocaust denier. If you want to say these things about them, you can do it to their face on their own blog but not here. I will start deleting posts that do not reach a standard of common courtesy. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 14, 2011 23:03:16 GMT
Irving is an interesting case as I remember asking an historian about this and he said basically the same as Humphrey did. I will have to ask Humphrey for a link (citation.) On Irving having a decent enough reputation in academia ? I'm actually quoting one of my tutors at uni but you can find similar sentiments in 'Lying about Hitler' – Richard E Evans P 8-9 Academic historians with a general knowledge of modem history had indeed mostly been quite generous to Irving, even where they had found reason to criticize him or disagree with his views. Paul Addison, for example, an expert on British history in the Second World War, had concluded that while Irving was “usually a Colossus of research, he is often a schoolboy in judgment.”
Reviewing The War Path in 1978, R. Hinton Thornas, professor of German at Birmingham University, whose knowledge of the social and political context of twentieth-century German literature was both deep and broad, dismissed the book as “unoriginal” and its “claims to novelty” as“ ill-based.”“Much of Irving’s argument,” wrote Sir Martin Gilbert, official biographer of Churchill, about Hitler’s War in 1977, “is based on speculation.”But he also praised the book as “a scholarly work, the fruit of a decade of wide researches.”” The military historian Sir Michael Howard, subsequently Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, praised on the other hand the very considerable merits” of The War Path, and declared that Irving was “at his best as a professional historian demanding documentary proof for popularly-held beliefs.”In similar fashion, the eminent American specialist on modern Germany, Gordon A. Craig, reviewing Irving’s Goehbels in the New York Review of Books in 1996, seemed at first glance full of praise for Irving’s work:
‘Silencing Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher. . , . Hitler’s War . . .remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War, and, as such, indispensable for all students of that conflict. . . . It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretationst hat appear, however implausible they maybe, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma or shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have a indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.’
P14 The right-wing historian Andrew Roberts noted that “several distinguished historians, all of whom asked not to be named, told me how much they admired Irving’s tenacity in uncovering new material from Nazi sources.”
Thanks Humphrey, enlightening as always.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 14, 2011 23:39:39 GMT
Nah! Not really I have seen too many.... homosexuals hanged, Schoolgirls having acid throw in their face for getting an education and/or not covering their faces. People who are dead or had their limbs blown off because they where a different religion or different sect of that religion. I'm sorry if anything I say offends you but we really need to get away from your beliefs so that the world is a healthier place for all people to live. Man. sounds like Merseyside has got a lot rougher (and more multicultural) since I left the UK. You don't know the half of it, you should see the place at weekends. Seriously though I'm knocking this kind of rhetoric on the head, It never adds to the debates.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 15, 2011 1:28:21 GMT
As it is if the less then civil atheists on this board can be polite I will return the favor.
About Carrier all I can say is atheist own him and will be held responsible for his arguments if they like it or not. I predict they will curse the day he ever associated with them.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Feb 25, 2011 15:47:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Feb 25, 2011 16:31:30 GMT
I hate to say it but anything argued by the man who thinks Jesus is a myth and that Hitler was a Christian is simply false in my book until shown right by a reliable historian. It is a trust issue and to be blunt I do not trust Carrier.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 25, 2011 21:32:18 GMT
<trivia>Humphrey, over on Carrier's blog you are still the formidable Lord Kitchener, so you must be able to recover the photo if you wish to. Or do you prefer to be formidable there, but more beautific here? ;D </trivia>
|
|