John’s Comments (group member since Jul 27, 2010)

John’s comments from the Debate group.

Xox wrote: "You failed to get the point. But I'm not clarifying things for your benefit."

Very good. I'm happy to let the readers of this thread draw their own conclusions based on what's been written.

Xox wrote: "The christian bible is crap and shit, after I have read it more than once, after I have found it so untrue in reading some other books that research on why this is so fake.

The christian bible is full of crap and shit is not emotional outburst. It is just a description of a crap book."

Thank you, Xox, for confirming my point.

Nathan wrote: "Hmmmmm..... I noticed you responded to none of my responses to your previous post. I am expecting an apology for calling me classless as you did so based on faulty logic. I explained as much in post #215. Where is my apology John? Where is your response to any of what I said?"

When you write something worthy of response, I'll respond. I stand by my description of many of your comments, and therefore you, as classless and vulgar. Readers of this thread can draw their own conclusions regarding the soundness of this characterization of you.

John wrote: "You consider the distress you have caused her to be trivial?"

Nathan replied: "If me saying "Go fuck yourself" to her caused her distress, there is a serious problem....with her, not me. If you think the appropriate response to me telling someone over the Internet to go fuck him/herself is to be distressed, there is a serious problem with you."

Chiara asked: "I have just read this argument about the 'Go fuck yourself thing' and I want to ask Nathan something.

"Why did you write 'Go fuck yourself' to Savannah? What did you want?"

Chiara, I know you asked this question of Nathan, and it will be interesting to see what he answers (if anything), but I would like to suggest some thoughts on his motivation. These thoughts are based entirely on comments Nathan has made in the Debate group as I have had no contact with him otherwise.

Nathan appears sometimes to react out of anger rather than reason. The comment Savannah made was "Nathan if you don't want your account deleted again, then you shouldn't cuss so much." This is so obviously true and relevant that there was no rational reply Nathan could make except to agree with her. He clearly was not up to agreeing with her, so he just lashed out in anger with his vulgar comment. This is frequently the reaction of people who have nothing constructive or reasonable to say. If you read this entire thread, you will see other manifestations of this behavior by Nathan.

This is particularly sad because Nathan, in other comments, has demonstrated good reasoning and power of logic. So it's not as though he is incapable of rational argument, he just, in the grip of anger, seems to lose his reason. This is one of the dangers of anger. It sometimes causes a situation in which the angry person acts as though insane.

Chiara *♥☺Eat cheesecake.....NOW☺♥* wrote: "I believe in evolution- but couldn't you say that a book on evolution is 'crap and full of shit'?"

Yes, you could, but it would mean about as much as Xox's statement to that effect about the Bible. Saying something is "crap and full of shit" is an emotional, otherwise meaningless comment about one's unsupported opinion.

If you wish to make an effective disparagement of something you need to make an analysis of the conditions described by Lauren, for example, and then point out where a problem occurs and back it up with evidence. In the case of evolution this is quite difficult for an amateur in the field, as most of us probably are. Evolution is a complicated subject with an enormous body of research published and discussed. Much of it involves data from artifacts that are extremely old and therefore difficult to interpret, given that there is no way to know their history for sure. Other of it involves research with living organisms that can be repeated and therefore understood much better.

You all have raised some very interesting things to discuss, some I have heard of before, others I have not. The problem is, there are so many that I despair of dealing with them all in one message. Also I have found that when trying to deal with many issues at once, none is adequately concluded. So, if you don't mind, I would like to deal with one issue at a time, if that's possible.

Since this "closed-minded" issue that I unwittingly unleashed is the latest item, let's begin with that. I watched the video Nathan recommended and found it very interesting. Here are some thoughts on it. (The numbers at the beginning of an item indicate approximately when, in minutes:seconds, I found the information in the video.)

(1) I found it curious that the "good guy" was always the atheist and the "bad guy" was always the believer in God. Since QualiaSoup is presumably an atheist, that is understandable. But it would have been nice of him, in the spirit of even-handedness, to have exchanged those roles at least once, unless, of course he really believes that atheists are never on the wrong side of the issue.

(2) (0:30) He states that open-minded means willingness to consider new ideas. I agree.

(3) (1:26) He makes the argument that when one labels an unexplained event supernatural, one will inevitably misinterpret evidence and make invalid causal connections and eliminate alternative explanations prematurely. This, he points out, is the very definition of closed-mindedness. I believe that whenever one takes a position, whatever it may be, one is subject to those possible errors in judgment. For instance, if one presents an explanation (other than calling it supernatural) for a previously unexplained event, one runs the risk (I think "inevitable" is a bit strong) of misinterpreting other evidence and making invalid causal connections and eliminating alternative explanations prematurely. I believe it is incorrect to impute such actions only to those who suggest a supernatural explanation for an otherwise unexplained event.

(4) (4:11) He makes the point that being skeptical about something does not make one closed-minded. He then suggests that definitely denying something does imply closed-mindedness. I agree.

(5) (4:33) He states that saying he doesn't believe something isn't the same thing as saying it can't be true. But if something is logically impossible, then it would be reasonable to say it isn't true when evidence is presented to back up that claim. I believe what he is saying here is, it is not closed-minded to say you don't believe something as long as you don't mean by that that the thing isn't true. And it is not closed-minded to claim that something is logically impossible and therefore cannot be true, when evidence is presented to back up the claim. I agree.

In summary, I thought QualiaSoup did a pretty good job of pointing out the meanings of open- and closed-mindedness. I think it was unfortunate how he assigned the roles of good guy and bad guy, thus suggesting that those who deny supernatural explanations have it right and those who propose supernatural explanations are always the ones who commit the fallacies he describes.

Xox wrote: "John,

If you are not that pathetic, I would have feel sorry for you for having the most ridiculous beliefs.

I've already known you don't support the freedom of speech for others while you yourself are making full use of it. I know you are a pathetic creationist and subsribe to one of the most hatred filled group called christianity.

What more do I need to know about such as pathetic loser? Wasting more of my time reading your stupid posts would not change my mind about you.

Regarding the pity part, yes, you are probably honest about your age, and I usually feel sorry for those who have wasted their lives in religion."

Xox, I didn't realize until the last few days that you were from China and that English is your second language. Although you still have a way to go, you have done quite well learning a language so different from your own. I doubt, even if I tried, that I could learn Chinese as well as you have learned English. I feel bad about some of my previous posts ridiculing your logic, given that you have to debate in a language foreign to you. I'll try not to let it happen again, but I have to admit that you do sorely provoke me, so I may not succeed.

And thank you for your feelings of sorrow for me over what you consider a wasted life. I'm old enough and sufficiently secure in my faith that you are right to hold out no hope for a change. I feel sorry for you also, for the same reason. But if you are young enough, perhaps there is still hope for you.

Xox wrote: "Read Nathan's posts on this pathetic christian cult follower John. Nathan is right on the mark on this pathetic chrstian loser."

Xox makes a good suggestion here except he should have included to read my posts also. My first post on this thread is number 38, but to get the real flavor of the situation you need first to read post #13 by Savannah and then Nathan's post #16 in response to Savannah. This will help you see why I got on this thread in the first place. Those of you who believe Nathan's post #16 is an appropriate response to Savannah will no doubt side with Nathan. Those who don't, will see my point.

If you are interested in one of the reasons I consider Nathan classless, check out Savannah's posts 155 and 169, and Nathan's only response to them, post 170.

I welcome a review by anyone of my posts and Nathan's. If you have the time and patience to read them all, you can draw your own conclusions. I continue to maintain that "classless" and "profane" are good descriptors for Nathan.

Note to Nathan: Since you feel offended and attacked when you are described as classless, be sure to flag this post along with my post 199. BTW, I find it interesting that you apparently don't object to being called profane. So I give you credit for being honest enough to recognize the accuracy of that characterization. Given your behavior on this thread you probably consider it a badge of honor.

Nathan wrote: "By the way, should I flag your last post? I mean, I found it offensive and Goodreads does say that they do not support people attacking others in their posts. I feel I have been attacked by your last post when you said I have no class. You're not observing the rules you are so strongly defending. Why is that, hypocrite?"

Yes, you should, since that's the way you feel about it. I do not object to having any post of mine deleted if it violates the rules I've agreed to obey. I will be interested to see whether Goodreads agrees with you, so please do flag it.

It will also be interesting to see whether Goodreads agrees with me that some of your posts should be deleted, if it comes to that. Perhaps Lauren will do the right thing and I won't have to flag your posts for Goodreads.

Nathan wrote: "Alas, you are that kind of person, and amazingly seem proud of it.

Yes, I am proud that I believe in free speech. It is sad, however, that you do not.

In my opinion (not that you care)

No..."

Well, I've got to hand it to you, Nathan, you leave no doubt that you are a classless, profane individual. You make it so easy to make a case against you. And I see that you aren't feeling better...just as hostile as ever. Tsk, tsk.

Nathan wrote: "Perhaps my hostility is due to the fact that you spend paragraph after paragraph and post after post attempting to establish points that were previously established countless times. I mean, I just love repeating myself and all, but try to pay attention the first time."

Sorry for taxing your patience, Nathan. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would (1) consider it proper to expose children to the kind of language you write in this thread, (2) consider it OK and/or necessary to write "abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, and profane" things in the course of a debate, and (3) think it OK to knowingly post "abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, and profane" material despite having agreed not to do so. Consequently I wanted to see for sure whether you agree you are that kind of person and to give you the opportunity to say you aren't, if you aren't. Hence my redundant questions. Alas, you are that kind of person, and amazingly seem proud of it.

"Little kids might read me saying fuck, shit, asshole, cocksucker, and dickface? Oh no!!!

Guess what...if kids have access to the Internet, there are much, much worse things they might be looking up. I see no problem with them seeing some vulgar (or offensive in any other way) words in a Goodreads group."

In my opinion (not that you care), not even adults should be exposed to that kind of language in a Debate group (or anywhere on Goodreads) that is supposed to represent "an intelligent environment." Whether Goodreads agrees with me or you on this remains to be seen. I've had an E-mail from Goodreads saying they define "profane" only as "vulgar," thus omitting anything characterized by irreverence or contempt for god or sacred principles. Hence it appears that many of your posts violate Goodreads principles while Xox's religious slurs are OK with them.

So I'm asking Lauren, as moderator of this group, to please delete your posts that contain vulgar content, since that content is clearly prohibited by the Goodreads terms of use. This, of course, will also require renaming this thread, which I hope she will do also or simply delete the entire thread.

If Lauren is unwilling or unable to fulfill her responsibility in this regard, then I will flag your vulgar posts and we'll see whether Goodreads agrees that your posts are inappropriate according to their terms of use.

I make these declarations for two reasons. First because some who have posted in this thread have criticized Goodreads because they presumably gave you no warning that your posts might be deleted. Now you have warning. Second, while it would probably be more comfortable for me to be anonymous in asking that your posts be removed, I am not willing to hide my belief and action that your posts are not proper in the context of the Goodreads web site.

Nathan and Dan,

Wow, you guys are pretty sensitive to my "closed mind" comment. I applied it to myself as well when I said I was as closed-minded about atheism as you are about Christianity. I guess "closed mind" is too often considered simply a put down. I should have used some other term. I didn't mean to offend anyone.

And my hour is almost up on the library computer where I am today, so I don't have time to watch the video Nathan recommended, or to comment further on Dan's points. I'll get home late tomorrow, so I'll try to comment more fully then or the next day.

Justin wrote 2 big, long posts (185 and 186) of quotes from previous posts of others"

Hi Justin, what is the purpose of those posts?

Part of John's paragraph: "Now would you be equally helpful in confirming your feelings regarding "free speech" on Goodreads? Here's how I understand your position. You believe you have the right under the umbrella of "free speech" to write anything on this web site that doesn't violate the law."

Nathan: "You still need confirmation? Fuck. That's what I said. I said the website should work that way, not that it did. Knock, knock... Nothin'."

John: "Oh, I almost forgot. When I said I was approaching my 8th decade, that means I'm close to 70, not 80. A person's 8th decade proceeds from 70 until 80."

Nathan: "Wow, you are even younger than I thought and still senile. Ouch."

My, my, such hostility, Nathan.

Thanks for confirming that the first sentence of the items I asked you to confirm or correct, is correct. Would you please comment on the rest of the paragraph? Here is a repeat of the rest of the paragraph: You realize that this web site is open to public view and that anyone 13 years old or older can join Goodreads and this Debate group. You believe you are free to write things that are abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, and profane. You understand that by joining Goodreads, you have agreed not to write things that are abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, and profane.

Thanks for your response and I hope you're feeling better.

Lauren wrote: "But from their [Goodreads staff:] actions, it seems like they aren't interested in speech as much as keeping peace between members or getting rid of anything that might cause them to lose membership. I was asked to guess what the goodreads staff is like, and they are helpful, nice people, but more interested in keeping the site alive and "good" then anything else."

I believe that's a reasonable analysis. Is there anything wrong, in your opinion, with them wanting to keep the site alive and "good"?

André wrote: "The only thing I disagreed with was GR's decision to delete Nathan's posts without even trying to warn him first and with such a weak reason(swearing)."

I'd be interested to know how you found out the reason for GR deleting Nathan's posts.

"The GR staff should only interfere in more extreme cases(which I don't think Nathan is), because I doubt they could enforce those rules without being unfair otherwise. I don't see them deleting those religious people who have made posts claiming others are going to hell(threatening or harassing?). Wouldn't discussing some religious beliefs fit one of their prohibitions?"

Isn't it reasonable to assume that GR doesn't delete posts unless someone complains, and only then if they believe those posts violate their terms of use? That would explain, for instance, why Xox hasn't been deleted. Many of his posts are clearly profane.

Why don't we conduct an experiment? I'll create a new membership under a different name and E-mail address and then I'll come on this thread in my new persona and threaten you with hell-fire and damnation. Then you complain to Goodreads and let's see what happens. What do you say?

Nathan wrote: "My position is this: If you make this claim, but cannot provide the document to prove it true, we can all decide whether we wish to believe you or disbelieve you. However, I would not demand of you to retract the claim and pretend it didn't happen because you can't provide the document.

Hmmm...it seems I have said this several times before. Knock, knock...anyone home in that head of yours?"

OK, thanks, Nathan. You're right. The distinction between what you believe and what I believe in this regard has been well established.

Now would you be equally helpful in confirming your feelings regarding "free speech" on Goodreads? Here's how I understand your position. You believe you have the right under the umbrella of "free speech" to write anything on this web site that doesn't violate the law. You realize that this web site is open to public view and that anyone 13 years old or older can join Goodreads and this Debate group. You believe you are free to write things that are abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, and profane. You understand that by joining Goodreads, you have agreed not to write things that are abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, and profane.

Did I get it right? If not, please provide correction.

Oh, I almost forgot. When I said I was approaching my 8th decade, that means I'm close to 70, not 80. A person's 8th decade proceeds from 70 until 80.

André, Dan, Nathan, Xox, and possibly Lauren:

OK, I get it that you are confirmed atheists. And it appears by the tone or your responses and by the fact that you don't consider the likelihood of God existing any greater than the existence of your Invisible Pink Unicorn, that you aren't really interested in understanding anything about Christianity. Bashing Christianity, perhaps, but understanding it...no. And that makes perfect sense to me. Since your minds are closed on the subject, there is no point in wasting time on it.

I feel somewhat the same about atheism. My mind is as closed to atheism as yours is to the existence of God. But I do have an academic interest in how an atheist might view some questions. Would at least one, but preferably all, of you be willing to answer some questions from a Christian who has no understanding of how a particular atheist might think?

André wrote: "Yep, that's what I meant. The "convincing arguments" for the existence of god are only convincing as long as you are unaware of the atheist's arguments, this is why the last refuge of the religious is saying that god is outside the realm of science and that it's a matter of faith."

As I said, I realize there are no arguments for the existence of God that are convincing to you and other atheists. That's why you are atheists. But since God, in almost every case, is not discernible by our normal senses, belief in God is a matter of faith. If you wish to ridicule that, go ahead, but it won't change the fact that faith in God exists in millions of people, Christian and non-Christian.

"Oh right, just because millions of people believe in god it makes the hypothesis much more likely to be true. I see how well that turned out in the past, wasn't it a common belief that diseases were caused by god, sin or something like that? Imagine if no one realized that it wasn't true, how would life be without medicine?"

If you look carefully at what I wrote, you will see that I wasn't trying to establish the truth that God exists, only that there is evidence considered sufficient by millions to support a belief in God. This was in response to your claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

"Ok, so let me ask this question: Why have no amputees been healed? Does no one have enough faith?"

I'm impressed that you have knowledge about all the amputees who have ever existed and know that none has been healed. But your question does not really require such sweeping knowledge. Why not ask why just one particular Christian amputee who didn't grow a new limb wasn't healed? Or why not ask why Christians die? Surely faithful people prayed that their lives would be spared and yet they died anyway. I don't know the answer to those questions. Is it your contention that God doesn't exist because every Christian prayer wasn't answered the way that Christian hoped?

Xox wrote: "That's that the PR slogan. Christianity is a hatred filled religious cult, and the christian god is nothing but a horrible piece of shit that give excuse for its follower to do horrible things.

Christianity is nothing more than an evil cult."

I believe everyone active in the Debate group is aware of your opinion concerning Christianity, Xox. I'm sorry you feel that way.