It has been requested that I remove Agradevaduta from the Atheist blogroll. I'm not a big fan of unilateral action when it comes to bloggers so I do not feel comfortable making the call myself. Agradevaduta is written by Archangel, his offense seems to be that he is a closet deist. As evidence I offer the closing paragraph from his post, A Letter to an Atheist – PART II: Can We be Good without God?
If one is in agreement with my hypothesis, the question remains, does one human being have the right to enforce moral standards on another? Do all human beings have an inescapable obligation to propagate the species, and does that obligation justify adherence to some moral code of conduct? Unless, we derive our moral standards from a higher power to which all human beings are subject to, the idea that equals can enforce a standard which is arbitrary and essentially self-serving seems unjustifiable. Therefore, morality must necessarily be derived from some external source for it to be sufficiently compelling. It must precede human thought and existence in order to demand adherence. If not, one is forced to concede that the fabric of our civilization is merely based on a well-refined and cleverly disguised version of law of the jungle.
In his defense, Archangel never claimed to be an Atheist or Agnostic. He claimed the title "Free Thinker" in our email communications.
I must also admit that I do not read his blog, so I have no real stake in this other than trying to be fair.
I need help. Please let me know if Agradevaduta should be removed from the Atheist Blogroll. Archangel, you are welcome to post your position in the comments.
55 comments:
I must say I am very disappointed in this so called request. Why on earth should contrary opinions be censored by those who have fought for centuries to have their opinions heard. If I am voted off the island, then all that Atheism claims to stand for ideologically turns to hypocrisy. I am merely searching for answers. So it is only natural for me to question. Unlike, the hypocrite that "reported" my insubordination...I am open to criticism and even correction. But to silence me now is to admit defeat.
Thank you for reading.
dude... what did you expect? You joined the atheist blogroll and starting posting about god. People are going to take exception. I don't want to get in the middle of a personal dispute, but my read of your work puts you firmly in the theist camp - which is to say you do not belong in the atheist camp.
Hey Archangel, how am I a hypocrite?
I believe you to be a theist, and every other blog on the atheist blogroll does not consider God to be an option.
To be fair, Mojoey's original post about the blogroll included free thinkers:
Minimum Requirements:
Your blog should be written from an atheist, agnostic, freethinking, or skeptical point of view. There is no requirement that your blog be exclusively atheist or agnostic themed. I write about many things here at Deep Thoughts, atheism is only one of many of my passions.
You must display the Atheist Blogroll on your blog.
Your blog must be a blog - it's helpful if your blog is active.
No pornography please.
**********************
The question to Mojoey, can a theist be a free thinker?
I think we can eliminate Archangel as an atheist, agnostic, or skeptic. He seems pretty confident (to me anyway) that God exists.
I hate labels. Don't you? I'm in neither camp and I thought that was pretty clear when I described myself as a freethinker.
Oh, so if I say something that sounds theistic, then I'm off the blogroll? That's ridiculous. Let us look at something I said which has already been described as "theistic"
"The fact that both morally right as well as wrong acts may positively impact on the overall survival of the species is a curious observation. This is because the inter-relationship between morally conflicting acts is completely beyond the control of both the individual as well as the collective. It is in fact persuasive evidence that there is an external design which causes human beings to act in morally contrasting ways, which has the cumulative result of ensuring survival."
I don't know, but it seems to me that I'm arguing that we need to be both "good" and "bad" in order to survive. And what's more, it seems I'm attributing this to some sort of design. This design could be anything from Alien programming to just nature.
Do you really think any right minded Christian or Muslim would agree with what I say in my posts?
Think again.
Thank you for reading.
I think some Buddhists might agree with your posts.
Archangel, do you believe in God? Do you believe the birth of the universe was created on purpose? Do you think life on earth was created on purpose?
Don't beat around the bush. Answer the questions honestly.
Oh, so it was you who went crying to mommy?
Look, if you have a problem with what I say, then you are welcome to ignore me. Sure, I am not convinced God is all made up, but neither is an Agnostic. I question because I am skeptical of ALL opinions. Besides, you haven't really done anything to convince me otherwise.
Thank you for reading
I don't know the answers to those questions. I "feel" there MIGHT be an external power out there we don't comprehend. But I also "feel" my perceptions are too limited to know for sure, and that I am likely to be WRONG. What does that make me? You're the expert.
Thank you for reading.
I'll repeat my comment from Godis4suckers here:
How did Archangel even make it onto the blogroll? I knew this fellow was a theist prior. (I) Haven't been keeping up w/the Jones' lately, it appears.
This has all the earmarks of a theist talking point (from the post listed above, in the comments section):
I'm afraid to ask...do you not believe that there is an objective norm against paedophilia or child molestation?
This is almost ALWAYS a last-ditch effort on the part of the theist: they vomit up some utterly reprehensible act for the shock value, let alone the inference that most of them would probably run out & do it once unfettered by the cosmic babysitter.
In his 'letter to an atheist' part the 1 (NOT A TITLE YOU'D USE IF YOU WERE ONE, BTW), I recall him distinctly saying (comment 21):
I think this a fundamental requirement which would lead to greater respect between theists and atheists. The issue I have dealt with in this post relates mainly to the childish manner in which certain eminent atheists have sought to establish their superiority.
I am amused at the lack of courage those of you on the atheist blogroll have displayed in engaging me on my own turf.
So he sock-puppeted his way onto the blogroll.
Doesn't their 'higher power' have something against dishonesty?
Oh my, yes it does.
Boot the lying jackass off, I say.
This is a toughie. If sincere, Archangel's arguments here I think warrant him staying. I for one see no problem with an agnostic theorizing a laundry list of "what ifs" about the existence of a deity and following one of those down the rabbit hole. It's a good exercise.
What I can't decide is whether he's sincere, or whether he's some covert theist. I'm the new guy, so I don't have all the back story but I responded to that post on his site thinking he was advancing the need for a god or as he put it once, "external design", and he was making some pretty broad assumptions in order to make that entity necessary.
If the Atheist Blogroll is a just place where atheists congregate to talk shit about the god delusion to each other, then perhaps voting Agradevaduta off the blogroll makes sense. But the relative value of the blogroll itself is then questionable.
Atheists do not have a "moral" duty to preach their creed to those that don't share it, but surely it would be instructive for reformed theists, freethinkers, philosophically undecided folk and even theists themselves to engage in the dialog with atheists.
To want to vote someone off the blogroll just because s/he appears to be leaning more towards theism than atheism is... strange. It's almost as if you're afraid of catching something off that blog. Theism perhaps?
To clarify: I am a card carrying atheist, but I was introduced to the atheist blogroll through the Agradevaduta site. I've enjoyed reading the posts here since then, but I wouldn't have arrived here on my own steam without that introduction. There'll only be a few people like me, certainly, but I'm glad I got here, and others may be too. So, please. Resist the temptation to be elitist, pedantic and bureaucratic. That's what got religion a bad name... do we want atheism to follow?
IF he/she is not an atheist, OR if he/she really believes people can't be good without god, then begone!
Bob, thanks for the comment.
IF freethinkers are permitted on this blogroll, then it doesn't seem justified to censor me.
A freethinker should be permitted to hold any number of views. It doesn't necessarily follow that he MUST believe that God does not exist. If that is his position, then he is an ATHEIST. Which I am not.
If this blogroll is ONLY for atheists, then yes, I must leave. However, as long as there is an invitation open to freethinkers, skeptics and agnostics, then this discrimination is uncalled for.
Besides, what are you afraid of? Isn't debating on such issues a good thing?
Thank you for reading.
I am for him being remove from the blog roll. I think it is necessary because who knows, someone might pull a prank similar like this in future. It is better to be safe. For ArchAngel, I have no problem with you being a free thinker. But rules are rules. If we do not enforce our rules, all hell would break out." I "feel" there MIGHT be an external power out there we don't comprehend". What the hell! We based everything on evidence. Nevertheless, like Krystalline Apostate said, I agree, give this this sock puppet the boot.
Please refer this:
Minimum Requirements:
Your blog should be written from an atheist, agnostic, freethinking, or skeptical point of view. There is no requirement that your blog be exclusively atheist or agnostic themed. I write about many things here at Deep Thoughts, atheism is only one of many of my passions.
Thank you for reading.
Archangel,
You say you hate labels, but "Atheist" is a label, and you're happy to -- in effect -- wrap yourself in it, as long as it brings traffic to your site.
You write from the opposite perspective from Bertrand Russell's: you presume that it's the atheist's job to prove that teapot isn't up there, and you write letters to atheists, as opposed to from one.
With that in mind, isn't rather misleading for you to lay claim to real estate on a blogroll of atheists?
No one is trying to "silence" you, just debating whether your site's intentions are contrary to the mission of this particular list.
I was perfectly happy to link to your item today. If I see another post of yours that interests me in a strongly positive or negative way, I would link to you again. How's that for silencing someone?
Like every atheist I've ever met, I'm a staunch defender of free speech.
But, you rather overstate the implications of your site's potential deletion from a directory of blogs that your opinions are, as you note, contrary to. How is removing a non-atheist site from a list of atheist sites remotely like hypocrisy?
I despise censorship. Loathe is a better term perhaps. We must always remember that we too have had thought similar to ArchAngel on our own. While I think he is vastly uneducated about what he is talking about and is most definitely beginning his argument from a theistic perspective (even if a watered down version of ID) we have a chance to give him a variance in perspective he would not get on his own. Time will tell if he is truly disingenuous about his "freethinking."
Note to ArchAngel, drop the "thank you for reading" thing. It makes you sound needy and desperate for attention. We are all hopeful that other will read and consider our responses.
I am hardly ashamed of my lack of education.
But let us all reevaluate the criteria of entering this blogroll.
FREETHINKING is presently a permitted ideology for contributers to this blogroll. Freethinking does NOT equate to atheism. Can the owner of this site please clarify as to whether freethinkers are STILL permitted to contribute...or is it exclusively for atheists?
It's funny you should call me needy. Most others feel my calling card is condescending and patronizing. But let's just say I was brought up to say thank you.
Thank you for reading.
This is in response to the comment by Chaoswes found at http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2007/08/09/a-day-in-the-life-of-an-atheist/#comment-291893 where my latest comments have not been approved for public viewing.
"To my knowledge, he has not done any of the normal activities that usually earmark someone for banishment. However, if he lied to get on the roll then fuck him and the horse he rode in on."
This is an extract of the email I sent Joe Crumpler requesting to be added to the blogroll.
Notwithstanding your requirements that I should be an atheist or an agnostic, I would appreciate being added to your blogroll since I view my self as a freethinker. While I am certain we will not agree on most things, I assure you my blog is one which most readers associated with yours will find interesting.
I never at any point claimed to be an atheist. So there was no deception. You agreed to these terms. Now stick to your word.
Thank you for reading.
It having been no easy journey.. that one fortunate living in an democracy, thus able to describe oneself as atheist, freethinker, able in voicing opinion.Such your freedom won at great sacrifice of life from religious extremists. Throughout history having shown in holding as maintaining power being capable of the most appalling acts of horror against humanity. ***********************************Over time having taken eye from ball many of them easly adapt discard religious attire heavenly titles as present, claiming be defender of freedom as democracy. ********************************** THROUGH THE BACK DOOR ONCE AGAIN SATAN HAVING COME, IN GUISE OF THE PEACEMAKER, MAN WOMAN AS CHILD.. There being no mercy.......
Here is the thing. Archangel states that he leans towards believing in God, but acknowledges he is probably wrong.
Most theists/deists admit the same thing, though most will admit they might be wrong.
The atheist blogroll has blogs that help educate, it doesn't mean we should have blogs that belong to those who may become atheists at a further date.
Archangel is most likely the only blogger on the roll that believes God exists, or even considers God a strong possibility.
I say remove him.
If we don't, why not invite the pope on the list too. He sounds very agnostic of late by accepting evolution.
Archangel: I must say I am very disappointed in this so called request. Why on earth should contrary opinions be censored by those who have fought for centuries to have their opinions heard.
Why should you be disappointed at the request? Why are you trying to censor a contrary opinion?
But to silence me now is to admit defeat.
That's ridiculous: No one is trying to silence you. If stupidity were a criterion for exclusion, I'd vote you off right there.
I hate labels. Don't you?
No I don't. If you do hate labels, why do you choose to label yourself as an atheist by requesting inclusion in the Atheist blogroll?
If—in addition to stupidity—hypocrisy, petulance, legalism, incompetent argumentation, and the ever-annoying "Thank you for reading" were grounds for exclusion, the vote would be a no-brainer.
But they're not, at least to my mind. The question is: Are you willing to self-identify as an "atheist", "agnostic" or "freethinker"? Period. Since Archangel self-identifies as a freethinker, and does not appear to endorse any revealed dogma, I have to weigh in for continued inclusion.
"Why should you be disappointed at the request? Why are you trying to censor a contrary opinion?"
Is it not possible to be disappointed in something and still NOT believe in censoring it?
Looks like I'm not alone up there on that stupid tree.
But barefoot, thank you for your impartiality. It is greatly appreciated. Oh and...
Thank you for reading.
I'm awaiting the result of this consensus test with bated breath. ADD , I suppose dissent is not really tolerated in these hallowed portals. Your views are interesting, and as a trinitarian theist, I cannot say I am full agreement with your views. They do however raise some interesting questions . If you are stricken of this most noble roll however, then you cannot honestly suggest that you would not have achieved your intention of showing this group off for what they are. Struck off or not, you still win don't you, you devious bastard... ;-)
P.s - Hi Krystalline. How're you doing?
The Atheist Blogroll can excommunicate? Well let's gather up the kindling and burn us a heretic.
Just because a thought experiment on the origins of morality leads to a generally theistic conclusion that is no reason to evict the writer from the blogroll. If this community is going to be so closed off to arguments that challenge its most basic assumptions, to react with "theistic" zealotry against such "heresies," it will only prove how much like a "religion" it has become.
If I had wanted to belong to a community of self-righteous thought police with little tolerance for independent thinking I'd have stayed in the fucking Catholic Church.
This is the English professor in me talking:
When people see the link on our websites "ATHEIST BLOGROLL" they assume it is a list of resources for ATHEISTS. IMO, it is unfitting to list a theist under the heading of Atheist, just as it is similarly unfitting for an Atheist to be referenced on a Christian list (and wouldn’t be). Mr Archangel Theist does not belong on Atheist blogroll, period. (And it is obvious he is a die-hard theist toying with us.)
If I go to a library and look up resources for a single subject, like atheism for instance, they don’t toss in random resources from other subjects those get a category of their own. For a theist to list themselves on an atheist blogroll is misleading. In a library he would be considered to be “misfiled” on the wrong shelf. Archangel is misrepresenting himself...intentionally. Typical.
Stay. For now.
Simply put: free inquiry should never be dismissed.
I would trust that Archangel be honest, and honorable, enough to remove himself should he decide he is a theist of some (any?) sort.
Charge someone on their honor and honesty, not their exploration of ideas. While I find his thinking about morality to be lazy, I can't condemn someone to the purgatory of hypocrisy without being the guide. (Fortunately, Archangel doesn't seem to need one...)
We're not a police-force, enforcing rules that are vague at best. (And all the better for being so poorly defined!) We have to rely upon the admission criteria, and the honesty and integrity of the lists members. Some will inevitably abuse that trust; I don't think Archangel has. But others will argue that he most certainly pummeled that trust and tossed into any other harbor but Boston. (Indeed, they do!) But he hasn't done that deed, yet.
We have to trust each other: we're not the Southern Baptists, kowtowing to some arbitrary and facetious political agenda. We're a group of individuals widely known as being as easy to herd as cats. Wildly differing views are our hallmark and virtue, not our condemnation.
If you disagree with him, instead of tossing him out on his ear, argue against his arguments. Tell him where his thinking is wrong (the "external force" [sic] of morality was not explored in any way, it was assumed, for instance), and if all else fails: we'll rely on his integrity to remove himself from the list.
(If he doesn't, then we hand him the oars to the leaky rowboat of theism.)
Carolyn Ann
The tone of some of these posts are interesting. I want to make it clear that I have tired to be fair in my management of the blogroll. I only boot people off who don't play by the rules. For example, if a blog does not display the blogroll, they get a warning, and then a boot. Agradevaduta does not display the blogroll, so technically I should boot him. However, there are larger issues.
In the history of the blogroll, I've booted two blogs off for misrepresenting their content. Their dishonesty was clear. When I am not certain, I ask for help.
Agradevaduta is a problem for me. He's not an atheist or agnostic. He's not a skeptic. As for freethinker... I'm not sure.
There is one thing I am sure of. He is a theist. This alone violates the spirit of the blogroll. My inclination is to give him the boot for this alone, but the free thinker thing bothers me.
What the hell is a free thinker?
This is from my very first post on my blog...
This evening I decided to take the plunge. Mid way, I realized it wasn’t that deep a plunge to take. It had been apathy that kept me away from the web-log world. Pure and simple. Life has changed dramatically over the past ten years about which I have so much to say. Why not share it? As the line between private thought and crying out in the town square grows thinner, I realized building a larger cage is more effective, and certainly more interesting than living in a box. Once we set the boundaries of thought wide enough, greater results may be achieved as opposed to the common curse of self-censorship.
I don’t suppose I would interest many of you out there with my perilously obscure and often logic defying thoughts. But I guarantee you this - my perspective is my own and I don’t make a habit out of quoting other people.
My ambition is relatively small, yet probably unattainable. It is simply to establish the need amongst us all to begin thinking afresh. What I mean by fresh is not mere novelty. It is to unlearn to the greatest degree possible that which we have already learned, and attempt to figure things out from the very beginning. Social conditioning blinds us. It blunts our senses.
I see this form of expression as a means to fight what I call “the condition of life”.
Thus, I dedicate this web-log to my own alter ego. One which is truly free. A refuge for honesty in its purest form. Something we all fight each day to contain.
This statement, captures my ideology best. If you still feel I have no place on this blog, then as the blogowner I suppose you will do what you must.
Thank you for reading.
He's not a skeptic.
He is a skeptic. He is skeptical of atheists claims that you can explain morality outside of a religious context. Its an important question for those of us who do not believe that God is the proper explanation. How do we answer his question? What are the flaws in his logic? Can you even begin to build a non-theistic model for the existence of morality without a consideration of the theistic models that have gone before?
The vague theism of his blog may become a problem if he remains consistently theistic in his conclusions, but based on what I've read so far there is no cause to remove him from the blogroll.
"Just because a thought experiment on the origins of morality leads to a generally theistic conclusion that is no reason to evict the writer from the blogroll."
My impression was it didn't LEAD to a theistic conclusion, it was lead, by the nose, to a theistic conclusion. I responded to his blog post, successfully (I thought) showing both that a god or "external designer" wasn't necessary as well as showing his base assumptions were incorrect. His response was merely to address my point of what role a deity could play in morality, which I said was merely as a really good threat to force obedience. Although he seemed willing to accept that idea as valid enough to ponder, I did find it odd that that was all he responded to. It's almost like he just skimmed to the god part.
I think this "excommunication" is a great morality experiment on it's own and can test some of his own hypotheses. The collective is the blogroll. He sought to become part of the collective. Why? Personal gain (traffic), seek answers or to infiltrate and confront. Should he be "obliged to ensure the survival of the collective"? If he fears reprisal or feels his survival (or the survival of his goal) is tied to or greatly enhanced from the collective then yes, he should be obliged to ensure the survival of the collective.
If he refuses to display the Atheists Blogroll on his site, then he's not "obliged to ensure the survival of the collective". Clearly then he shows his survival is not tied to the survival of the collective. I think an essential requirement for becoming part of the collective is being obliged to it's survival. This alone is reason enough for booting him.
Whether he has any value to the collective by offering his viewpoints I suppose can be debated, but is the value worth more than a disregard for the survival of the collective? I say no.
Using his own assertion that the collective can be positively impacted by both right and wrong, does the collective benefit from the wrong of him staying? I think all of his assertions boil down to this. He makes no claims to support the collective, he doesn't display the blogroll, he clearly is taking a confrontational stance and his only arguments for his worth to the collective and thus, worth for staying is "Why on earth should contrary opinions be censored?".
So is it personal gain, seeking answers or to infiltrate or confront? If it's either of the first two, then there's a price for joining the collective and part of that is displaying the blogroll. If the last option, then clearly he must go. To the idea that despite his actions and/or motivation, it's worth it to the collective to keep him, I say no again.
Why doesn't Agradevaduta display the Atheist Blogroll on his blog as the rules state?
Can a theist be a freethinker?
And do we want Deist or Theist freethinkers on THE ATHEIST BLOGROLL?
I wouldn't join a Christian blogroll as someone stated here previously?
I am on blogrolls that have many Fundy Christians on it, as I am not a friend of radical Islam, but they are not religious blogrolls.
I do not think Archangel qualifies as an atheist in any way shape or form.
Okay: HAND HIM THE OARS.
The leaky row boat is over there, along with your condescension and arrogance, Archangel.
(If you're going to insult someone, at least be original about it.)
Carolyn Ann
About not having the blogroll displayed...there's a valid explanation.
I was previously on wordpress and informed Joe that I couldn't display the blogroll since wordpress didn't permit javascript.
This was his response:
"I did not realize your blog was in wordpress. They do not allow javascript. All that we ask is that you display the graphic with the associated link back to the blogroll."
I have a link back to the blogroll andthe atheist "Bob" claims to have accessed the atheist blogroll through my site. So much for the nonsensical hypothesis presented by PhillyChief.
Now the next issue is that I have now moved to blogger. So now I think it would be my duty to display the atheist blogroll. However, I shouldn't be excommunicated yet, since I have not received a warning.
Jo did say "...if a blog does not display the blogroll, they get a warning, and then a boot."
So I'm awaiting my warning.
But that's just a silly excuse to avoid the larger question at hand. Should an individual that is not entirely convinced about what ideology to adopt be silenced from this blogroll?
Thank you for reading.
Carolyn Ann, I never actually replied any of your posts, so I have no idea what changed your mind since your previous comment. I apologize in advance for whatever that's bothering you.
Thank you for reading.
" Should an individual that is not entirely convinced about what ideology to adopt be silenced from this blogroll?"
Maybe not. If eventually convinced of an ideology contrary to the blogroll, would you accept that you should leave?
I'm new here and I'm new to your writings Archangel. I only have that one blog post of yours to go by, but that felt very contrived rather than an honest search for an answer. You're also very confrontational or at best provocative. You're username alone attests to that.
As to displaying the Atheist Blogroll, I don't feel you're really honoring your commitment. If mojoey granted you a pass and allowed you to so minimally fulfill your commitment than so be it. I was not aware of that, nor could I be since it was privately communicated so in light of the public evidence, my comments were not "nonsensical". With that info I'd have to say you made your bed, mojoey. Further failing to administer a warning is fluffing up the pillows. You know what's next.
As an outsider, it looks to me like the rules here are too vague and enforcement is too lenient and thankfully Archangel is exposing that. I suppose this goes back to his comment of both right and wrong acts can positively affect the collective. I say this is all a valuable lesson being learned. :)
It is up to you, Mojoey. If you want the Atheist Blogroll to be restricted to atheists, so be it. If it was up to me, I'd opt for such a requirement. But it is not up to me.
archangel writes:
"So I'm awaiting my warning.
But that's just a silly excuse to avoid the larger question at hand. Should an individual that is not entirely convinced about what ideology to adopt be silenced from this blogroll?"
I've changed my mind, archangel. After that wad of legalistic, dramatized horseshit, I do not intend to ever link to you again.
Instead of a simple, "yes, I'll now add the blogroll now that my site supports it," you play little games and pretend this is a First-Amendment crisis. To steal Stardust's metaphor, your blog is a deliberately misfiled book.
Your talent for moral handwringing seems nowhere to be found when it comes to your decision to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Oh, and thank you for never addressing the substance of my criticism.
If I may be so bold, I offer two options for changing the rules for the Atheist Blogroll:
1) Limit it to Atheists
2) Allow broader membership, but members will be labeled (atheist, agnostic, etc) and must declare a label when petitioning for membership.
I think it would be wrong for someone who may be a theist to exploit the blogroll and get traffic. I think there's a very real assumption that when one clicks a link in the Atheist Blogroll, they're going to get an atheist blog. I mean, if I click on a link in the chocolate lovers blogroll, I'd be put off if it took me to "the vanilla blog".
The terms freethinking has always bothered me. It is too ambiguous and wishy-washy.
After reading more comments from ArchAngel, I have officially changed my mind. He sound like a snide condescending self-important weasel. So, a swift boot to the ass would be appropriate.
As an atheist I want to thank Archangel for exposing loopholes in the rules for the Atheist Blogroll big enough to drive a god through. In light of this, I would expect the rules to change and therefore make the Atheist Blogroll both stronger and better.
You should take delight in knowing that you've contributed well to atheism. I salute you!
phillychief,
Even worse than that would be to visit "I Hate Cilantro" and see posts advocating corianderism.
Long story...
I don't know where I'd stand then VLWC, since I like both cilantro and coriander.
Shameless plug, I posted something on this on my fledgling blog.
mojoey,
If you do revise the blogroll, segregating the Cilantrists from the Acilantrists might be in order. :v)
HAVING READ SOME OF THE REPLIES AS WHAT SEEMINGLY A TRIVAL WRONGDOING BY ARCHANGEL IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE BE A PLACE FOR ARCH, ALWAYS. HOWEVER FAILINGS OF ARCH TREATING BROTHERS SISTERS WITH RESPECT AS DUE TO THEM NOT GO UNPUNISHED,LET US REMEMBER SPARING OF ROD BE THE SPOILING OF THE CHILD,I SUGGEST IN THE CASE OF ARCH PUNISHMENT BEING A STRAPPING OF THE BARE BUTTOCKS, THE FORCE OF STRAPPING BEING EQUAL TO THE DISRESPECT HE HAVING SHOWN BROTHERS AS SISTERS,THOUGHTS OF A STAPPING AS THE ACT IN SOME CASES ONLY EXCITES AS AROUSES IMMENSE PLEASURE,SUCH THE CASE WITH ARCH THEN ALTERNITE PUNISHMENT FOUND.
The problem here seems to be that Archangel does not self-identify as atheist, and this is OK by the rules of inclusion, but out of step with the title of the blogroll. Since he's a freethinker, I believe he should stay as long as the rules of inclusion remain the same. But I also think that Mojoey would be well-advised to reconsider the rules for inclusion with an eye to limiting the "Atheist Blogroll" to members who self-identify as atheists.
I am torn. I like the food for thought. Personally, I can't stand it when atheists themselves debate the "god existence issue", to me it's completely irrelevant because of the "faith" interjection. You can't get around it. I've only read "A letter to and atheist: Part II", but what I've seen there has sparked some rather healthy debate about morality, though I myself am unschooled in the field of debate I can at least follow it.
On the other hand, archangel is clearly not an atheist and it is titled "Atheist Blogroll".
I have a solution. Next to agradevaduta you could simply add a triple asterisk or dagger, signifying the "theist" content.
ungodly cynic,
Where is the healthy debate that this item has sparked?
Archangel posted something that, at heart, attempted to repudiate the atheist point of view, then asked for comment but didn't respond to the criticism.
Outside of that, all the debate has been on whether someone who writes from that perspective belongs in a list of atheist bloggers. That's a fair question, but IMHO not something one would want a steady diet of.
It's an atheist blogroll. Get rid of him.
Thanks for all the help. I really do appreciate it. I've decided on a Rule Change. The Atheist blogroll is for Atheists.
I stress on the fact once again that there was no deception.
However, this decision is fair enough. If the rules change, then I don't belong here.
I enjoyed how this discussion took a strange twist from the content of my blog, to the nature of my personality. I've "disrespected my brothers and sisters"?!
I apologize profusely. After all, I've been treated with all the respect I deserve.
My favourite retort was by Naomi who said:
"Nothing has changed my mind: you’re still a crabbe on g*d’s “Holy Crotch”. Maybe if he scratches hard enough, you’ll get smear into his dermis. Beats the hell out of your hell, dontcha think? And it might even be better than your heaven! Unless he suffers from “crotch rot”, which is probably why you’re there, in the first place."
Bob, Darwin's Dagger and Ungodly Cynic, you are all most welcome to join in me with debate anytime. I apologize to the others for not engaging them on every single argument presented on my blog. Having a job, a life and an ongoing debate one whether you should be expelled tends to be time consuming.
My experience with other atheists have not always been this distasteful.
Good luck to all of you. And I will not let pride get in the way should you reconsider your policy.
Thank you for reading.
ARCH problem be the many I's as the human journey progresses the individual I's should melt as the ice cube in your glass of coke. Individual soul merges with spirit of creation ...as water makes its return journey becoming again one with ocean,equal soul of humanity again merges into the spiritual as it in truth being as manefestation of the power of creation ..as in your learning, that such learning be balanced in understanding then I's melt as river again becoming one with ocean.....as with climate change, it becomes more obvious that for a period humanity in its manifest material form will end for a period. There be good reason for this,yet that another matter. As the future for humanity becomes clearer, such will be balanced with more depth in understanding as experience,as needs be replaced with more clarity of understanding as experience...at such levels of development one MUST be on one's best behaviour modest, humble, as an liberal helping of humility..it no easy task attaining levels of spiritual development,as in making effort finds the burden not lessen but increase,such the way it being untill breaking through barriers, as the plane flying above clouds then in finding sun...if desire for truth being great in heart as brain, then in time all reveiled, if it be desire for truth within brain only,then it being lesson to understand (spiritual development) that such it be vital that there being balance betwixt brain heart, experience as understanding, only understanding.... one could end as but a raving lunatic......balanced with experience ...then being no question of your sanity...added experience then give such then a sound platform for understanding to build upon..which being to the benefit of all humanity... .. .
@ Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy
ungodly cynic,
Where is the healthy debate that this item has sparked?
Right here in these comments.
sectarian
This person you banned is actually a Harvard graduate and generally a decent human being.Its a shame their logical and intriguing debates were silenced. Just thought you should know.
Post a Comment