Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?

[Zzyzx]

.
Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?

Theists predominate in the list of people who are banned for repeated rule infractions. For example, of the last ten people banned, seven or eight are Theists. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 860481d25f

Why is this?

[Zzyzx]

.

WOW – now THAT is the way to find authoritative information about plate tectonics – a creationist website. That must REALLY increase credibility with readers.

Can you cite publications in the professional literature regarding plate tectonics, preferably peer reviewed articles in legitimate scientific publications, that support your contentions?

I detect that you are not pleased with my choice of urls. That is your problem, not mine.

Au Contraire, I am VERY pleased with your choice of URL's – which demonstrates to readers that 'evidence' supporting your contentions does NOT come from legitimate scientific sources (people who actually study such things and publish in professional / academic journals), but from creationist websites that are known to have a vested interest in a biased view of 'science' to support their religious proclamations.

It should not be rocket science to understand that quoting a creationist website as 'evidence' in debate with a Non-Theist (and with Non-Theists or potential Non-Theist readers) is not likely to be very convincing?

Creationists HAVE no peers.

Thank goodness . . . and they appear to be declining in numbers as education and information become more widely available (at least in the technologically advanced nations).

That's because they deal exclusively in truth;

Of course, Creationists THINK they KNOW TRUTH – by reading unverifiable ancient texts and talking to one another – and ignoring or dismissing real world observations and evidence that contradicts their religious pronouncements.

not superficial materialist fables that ignore the totality of reality.

Materialists deal with reality – not the fables / myths / folklore / traditions of ANY of the world's thousands of religions worshiping thousands of invisible, undetectable gods.

Theists often become frustrated, angry, hostile, and inclined to make personally directed remarks or engage in obfuscation rather than debating honorably.

It appears Theists are not alone in that regard...

Then kindly explain why Theists dominate the Probation, Suspension, Banishment list.

Let's encourage those who believe in supernaturalism, superstition and paranormal to keep posting this sort of thing to show readers the type of thinking behind such positions.

And what type of thinking would that be, Z?

The type that maintains "everything that has a beginning must have a cause?"

The type that is not satisfied with the prosaic, dull, dreary, academic account of matter being all that exists; and that it -- through some imaginary fluctuation of energy -- turned microbes into men?

The kind that insists that this universe is too wonderful; too amazing; too lyrical, poetic, and infused with meaning, to be nothing more than a dance of atoms?

Yes, including that sort of pretend philosophical and anti-science 'thinking' is what I mentioned.

And now, I ask you a question.

I have opened a thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 641#844641 to deal with that diversion from the OP of this thread (which is, remember, “Why do Theists dominate the banishment list? )

Notice that your questions have nothing to do with the OP.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 218 by Zzyzx]

Volbrigade wrote:

And now, I ask you a question.

I have opened a thread http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 641#844641 to deal with that diversion from the OP of this thread (which is, remember, “Why do Theists dominate the banishment list? )

Notice that your questions have nothing to do with the OP.

LOL -- I am learning a valuable lesson from you, my friend.

Never engage in a dispute with the man who operates the control switches. He's the boss.

It is a role that you perform well, sir -- a man who loves his work?

I was engaged in (what to me was) a fairly enjoyable conversation with OC, which had... "gravitated", I think is the right word... away from the narrow spectrum of the topic heading. You maintain that it had gone to a place that had nothing to do with the OP. And took the action you deem appropriate.

I maintain there is a linear connection to the OP; and even if not, that the convo had moved to livelier environs.

Two opinions. One is actionable and enforceable. The other is not.

Whether or not that relates to the OP, I can't say with certainty...

[Zzyzx]

.

Never engage in a dispute with the man who operates the control switches. He's the boss.

That excuse, occasionally tried by some who fare poorly in debate, won't work.

People who debate and read here are likely to be quite aware that I have no need to 'control switches' or play games.

When I debate in threads that is done as a debater NOT an Administrator or Moderator. If I act in an official capacity that is clearly specified in the post (usually not done in thread in which I am debating).

It is a role that you perform well, sir -- a man who loves his work?

Why all the personal attention? Is the topic too difficult to address?

I was engaged in (what to me was) a fairly enjoyable conversation with OC, which had... "gravitated", I think is the right word... away from the narrow spectrum of the topic heading. You maintain that it had gone to a place that had nothing to do with the OP. And took the action you deem appropriate.

I took action as a MEMBER – a DEBATER. All members are entitled to open threads.

Rather than focusing on personalities, try to debate the topic – the issues – without personal remarks. Doing so is rather simple – READ the OP question and, if inclined, attempt to answer.

The OP of this thread is “Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?�

Do you have anything to contribute toward answering THAT question?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 220 by Zzyzx]

The OP of this thread is “Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?�

Do you have anything to contribute toward answering THAT question?

No. I said all I have to say about that topic pages ago. It is one of mild interest -- but I found it a good place to make re-entry on this forum, after a (first) mandated, and then self-imposed, hiatus. I was enjoying where the conversation was going, following its head, as conversations tend to do. But unless OC has a response to my "what if...(roughly) 'non-theism' is true?", then I'm done on this thread. Perhaps he has, or will, respond on the new thread you opened...