As to dickery, I'm extremely confident that not only do we tear each other apart as often as we do theists, but that if you ran a full inventory of the entire site, you'd find the end tally has the theists at the top of the dickery statistics.

What "dickery"?

Is it better for humans in general to walk on eggshells, or is it better that we communicate openly without fear?

You have made sweeping generalizations about the entirety of this board's membership. Instead of doing that you should treat individuals as such, because that is what we are, individuals.

And what makes you think we only attack religious claims? If you spent any time reading here you'd know that we even go after each other on politics and science.

This is probably the most liberal board you will ever visit which very rarely boots anyone. It's owner and the mods have a hands off approach and as long as you are not making physical threats or soc puppets or spamming, your posts are left for the reader to decide.

As I state in my other posts, I am specifically referring to posters that chastise other users, usually theists, for doing something that they themselves have done in the very same thread. I apologize, perhaps I shouldn't have used that word and just stuck with "hypocrisy", but I chose that word because in a few instances, the users doing the chastising did it in a manner that came across as very "dickish" instead of being polite about it.

I'm very liberal, so I don't mind the coarse language and open discussion at all. I do find it to be a bit immature, however, when a poster resorts to name-calling, strawman attacks, etc., but that is to be expected on any forum. I tend to ignore those aspects. Like I said before, whaddaya gonna do? 'm not referring to those instances.

I didn't mean only on religious claims. I was referring to users who have "theist" or some derivative in on their mini-profile on the side. They're usually (that I've seen so far) the ones singled out for "breaking rules" like linking and copy/pasting. Perhaps the "atheists" have been treated the same way before,  just haven't seen it yet.

I've been to the politics board. All hell breaks loose over there lol. I didn't notice much in the way of theist discrimination over there. I guess political position trumps religious view over there. 

I haven't been to the science board yet. I'll make it my next stop. Science is one of my favorite subjects, especially astronomy.

I didn't mean to generalize. As I said before, I noticed certain members committing said "dickery", but none of the other members seemed to disagree with the chastisements, so I assumed they agreed. That's why I asked if there was some sort of policy change, or was I left to assume that everybody here was really a biased bully? I know that was a generalization, but I guess in this case I was letting majority rule.

Sorry for that. I didn't mean to offend anybody here. Like I said, mostly everybody here seems pretty cool. It was just that one specific thing that was irking me, and after seeing it in like three different threads, I finally felt obligated to make a post about it. I guess I was venting.

 I never even noticed the "quote" button  next to the "reply" button. 

I think all of the threads I was referring to, IIRC, were on the Jesus Mythicists Campaign forum. One in particular was the first one that was started by Rook_Hawkins. It started in 2006. I noticed that Rook seemingly disappeared, even though he's a co-founder. Somebody linked to his Facebook in one of the threads, but he doesn't seem to have any activity there either. Did he just go off the map, never to return? He was pretty brilliant in his debates with Kirk Cameron. I looked forward to seeing more from him on these forums.

 I did some research, and I am a little confused about the Rook Hawkins/Thomas Verenna thing.

His last posts are all in September of 2008, which lines up with the huge economic crash as you say, but there are some things that puzzle me. Some blanks I can't quite fill in.

Seemingly, Rook left RRS with little or no explanation. He may have needed to focus more on a career or school, but not having time for RRS doesn't really jive since he has his own website that he operates now, and has pretty much since he left this site - http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/

I would think, if he left on good terms, that he would have at least said goodbye to everybody in some formal way, but from what I can tell, his postings here just stop rather abruptly. It's like the facebook of somebody that died. It just stops. No blog saying this will be my last blog on this site, no post saying "Hey guys, nice knowing yall but I'm leaving for bigger and better things." It just ends suddenly with no explanation.

Then we have this -  http://politicaljesus.com/2012/04/21/the-encyclopedia-black-rises-is-it-tom-verrena-or-rook-hawkins/ 

If you read the comments section, Thomas basically denounces his life Rook Hawkins and attempts to apologize for it. He seems thoroughly ashamed to even have been associated with this site, but never seems to explain why.

Then, we have this website berating Rook/Thomas both presently and as a former member of the RRS.

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.com/

Also, toward the end of the Jesus Myth thread, we have this post by a mod:

Its as if sometime around the end of 2008, Rook mysteriously had a change of heart about his beliefs and such on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and his membership with the RRS, and just vanished, cutting all ties with RRS in the process, and completely dropping the alias Rook Hawkins and even going so far as to ignore and deny it for a length of time until he was called out on it.

What baffles me about the entire affair is that he gave lectures and seemed to wear his RRS badge proudly up until his last moments here, then suddenly he just vanished. No explanation, and nothing but apologies for ever having been associated with RRS years after the fact.

I'm just wondering if anybody here has any more information as to what happened. Why did he just up and vanish like a fart in the wind. Why does he suddenly want to pretend he was never a member here, and none of the writings and lectures he gave ever happened? Why does he denounce Rook Hawkins, and his doubts of the historicity of Jesus Christ? He still associates himself with the same authors that he cited throughout his essays about it. He still operates an atheist blog. He is still a proud public atheist and continues his discourse with theists on other forums. It doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

Did Brian piss him off or something? Did they have a falling out? Does anybody know?

 

It's baffled me too.  

I've written briefly about Rook Hawkins converting to Thomas Verenna here.

I don't write more about it because I don't think I need to.  I think it's much more appropriate if I leave it alone.  Obviously I disagree with choices he's made, but it serves me no purpose to push that envelope.  We had a great friendship, I'll always hope the best for him.  Brian did in fact key in on the economic issues that helped drive a wedge in our efforts.  While he may be active today, he was not nearly as active in the year after he left.  I don't think he ever had a formal goodbye because I'm not sure he ever intended on stepping away turning in to goodbye.  Like Brian said, life happens.  People move on.  

I don't think you'll ever get the full story.  

Oh, he's an atheist again?  Are you sure?  If so... thank god!

It would seem like it, but I can't say for sure. He still makes posts about atheism, and appears to still be a member of the Jesus Mythicist camp, but he's kind of confusing in the fact that he's purposely cryptic.

He constantly makes posts about how not all mythicists are the same, and defends mythicists against being called "denialist", and even has a new book out that he co-wrote about the Jesus myth.

He doesn't directly identify himself as atheist or deist on his blog, but from his writings, I get the impression he is still an atheist. I could be wrong though.

Thanks! I was considering using a picture of myself, but I remembered used this avatar years ago on a private Star Trek forum and still had the pic on Myspace. I always like it. I'm not as bad as I used to be, but back in the day I was a huge DBZ fanatic.

I look forward to posting here more, but right now I'm still trying to get caught up on all the forums. Seems like certain topics have already been beat to death. The science forum is rather interesting though. I'll probably start posting there pretty soon, once I read through it. I also like the politics forum. I'm independent, but I do tend to side with the Democrats on certain issues.

Thanks. I tried reading through his blog and looking for relevant posts, but it's rather disjointed and unorganized other than by date. I didn't realize the "deistic viewpoint" part was a link when I first read what you linked to. It appears almost the same color as the other text for some reason instead of blue.

Anyway, a lot of questions have been answered so I guess that pretty much wraps everything up.

P.S. - Keep doing what you do Brian. This site rocks and once I find a new job, I plan on becoming a financial supporter as well. Every little bit counts as they say!

I find it funny that I could play arguments of himself against himself.  I've got plenty of text and audio of him ripping on deism.  And even more of him ripping in to Christ as a man.  I along with many others believe "Rook Hawkins" was more right than "Thomas Verenna."  

Well there were Rook Hawkins haters.  There are Brian Sapient haters too.  I say, "so fucking what."   It's more important to be true to yourself, than do what you think others want.

That's what I mean when I say he should have stuck to being Rook IMO. He's going to have haters either way. It just seemed like he was truer to his self as Rook, whereas he seems more in denial as Thomas.

By the way, it just totally clicked with me (I already knew who you are, but it didn't quite register) that I'm talking to a guy I saw on TV! This is really cool. I never thought I'd be conversing with the guy I saw debating Kirk Cameron!

What is immature to me is when someone comes to a website they don't own and complains about the conduct. To me that would be like going into a smoker's house, or a non smoker's house you don't own and complain. Sure you can do that, but if it bothers you that much, why do you do it?

If you are going to take on your opposition on their turf, instead of complaining, make your case.

There is a reason, not out of hate, FOR EXAMPLE ONLY, I might say to you "If that is the case, then God is a dick". Far too often the theist will take that as an ad homin, instead of using self introspection to, not agree, but try to understand the POINT OF VIEW. IE "When you claim x is true, this is my response to X claim".

You know why I hate golf and love the NFL more? Both do take talent, any sport at the pro level does. But I hate golf because the fans are required to be mice when the guy is making his putt. Whereas the fans of the NFL, during a field goal attempt during a playoff game are roaring and waving their hands in an attempt to distract the kicker. I think it takes much more talent, even in debate, to focus on what you are trying to argue, rather than what the other person does. A kicker in the NFL does not hold their job long if they cant handle the heat. I think a solid argument in real life is not one to be protected, but one to be kicked the shit out of. If it withstands the shit kicking to the point it is universal, and not merely a club whim, then you have accomplished something.

Congrats!  

Well, I was mainly referring to the theists here as the ones that use ad hominem attacks. I'm used to it and have learned to just ignore it, but I was stating my opinion that I do find it immature when one does this instead of sticking to the issue that is being debated. It detracts from the argument, and often times derails it and causes it to go off-topic.

By the way, I wasn't complaining about the website itself, just certain users that appeared to be hypocrites. I vehemently defend the atheist point of view, more often IRL. I just don't resort to unfair tactics and hypocrisy whilst doing so, and it bothered me to see certain users appear to do this, because in my opinion it both weakens their position and makes other atheists look bad. Of course, most of what I observed has been explained, so the issue is moot at this point.

I agree with you 100% about the NFL sentiment. What's funny about it is that many NFL stars play golf, but how many pro golfers play football?

Those things aren't what I mean. Hell, they're actually quite hilarious. I'd be laughing my ass off if you talked like that during a debate with me. I often times do the same things, especially quoting movie lines like "Hello, McFly!"

I agree. I think you misunderstand me though. If you make an off-topic, straw-man, or ad hominem statement in a response to me, and I become distracted, that is my fault. I should be above it and be able to ignore it and stick to the issue at hand. What I mean are two things -

1) It derails the argument in general. Often times, more than two people are participating in the discussion, so, say for instance, you correct my grammar instead of actually responding to a point I make, somebody will inevitably say something about how they can't stand grammar nazis or something similar, next thing you know the debate has turned into a discussion about grammar nazis and the original point is lost. By sticking to the issues/points at hand, and not going off topic, it makes it easier for the debate to progress to its eventual end instead of going off on an often un-related tangent.

This relates to 2 - 

2) I'm not saying the person is immature, but that the behavior is. One can act immature without being immature, much like a person can act stupid without actually being stupid. I also stated more than once that it is my opinion, and is not a fact. What I consider 'immature", you may consider to be "proper debate etiquette". That is your prerogative. It still doesn't change the fact that my opinion is that certain behaviors are both immature and signs of a weak position.

To use your NFL analogy, yes it shows the sign of a great athlete to win the game despite something like being the quarterback of the away team and being booed the entire game, but on the other hand, if the nose guard resorts to calling the center's mom a fat bitch in order to try to elicit a reaction out of him and fumble the ball, it displays both a sign of immaturity and weakness because he apparently thinks that he cannot win without resorting to such a tactic, much like the booing crowd.

A true sportsman, in my opinion, would not boo the other team to try to garner some sort of advantage and would let the game play out on its own, and the nose guard would not resort to name calling to try to gain an unfair advantage instead of letting the centers natural ability determine the outcome.

I can see both sides of the coin, but my position is that it should be fair. I must concede that, more often than not, that it, and life, are not fair, and one must deal with this as best one can. C'est la vie and all that.

Now that is a sport I would gladly pay to see!

the right to vote, or to exist?

That's the opposite of immature. He's testing the waters right away instead of investing time in a forum only to get surprise-banned 6 months down the road. I did exactly the same thing when I joined, and the discussions it provoked between Sapient and myself proved to me that this site was worth investing in, and wouldn't censor or ban me just for a comment or position I held. I fully support anyone who tests the waters of a forum in such a way. Especially when they don't ride in with a litany of bullshit. As far as I can tell and recall, every concern mentioned in the OP was legitimate. As were the answers to those concerns.