intellectual freedom and debate strings

I posted the information below in response to my debate string being shut down (See Bible accuracy forum - Jonah.Those who agree with me please show me through a concerted effort to make any necessary changes in the debating environment in certain forums. If you are a professed atheist I do not ask you to agree to agree with everthing I say below. That would be unreasonable and I certainly would not ask this. I just ask that you agree with me in terms of censorship being wrong and that it should not be tolerated where it is occcuring.Here is what I wrote:I would agree with you that atheism is irrational. Often professed atheist claim they want evidence yet they often are unwilling to really listen to evidence and become angry when it is presented.I once heard that when truth and error compete on a fair playing field that truth will always prevail. I have noticed, however, that often truth is attempted to be suppressed. One just has to look at history and see that in the early days of Christianity, the reformation, and even recent history the Bible has been burned and banned. Sadly, when those who do not want to be faced with truth will take suppressive measures to extinguish the truth rather than ultimately face it. I believe, however, that ultimately you can run away from the truth but ultimately it has to be faced. Of course, many would like to take the easy way out and take measures that are ultimately self defeating. In the long run, however, the easy way is the hard way and the hard way is the easy way.I have learned, however, not to listen to men's excuses in regards to their responses to the truth but to watch their actions. JP Morgan wisely said, "A man always has two reasons for doing anything--a good reason and the real reason."So this brings us to the question on how atheism has been promulgated in history or communities where it has power. I think you will invariably find suppression. I have certainly find this to be the case in my own personal obversations. I have also found it to be the case in my study of history. The commmunist, for example, where they have adopted atheism which often seems to be the case, make no delay in shutting down churches and using other tactics that are less obvious. It seems as if the professed atheist know they cannot win on logical grounds and thus use other means. Of course, religionist often do the same. Yet, I have found in history no materialist martyrs. I have also found that genuine Christians are open to discussion that is conducted in a reasonable manner. I realize that debate can sometimes get heated and satire is used. But it just seems that the professed atheist cannot handle this. Often the proudest cannot stand to deal with satire although they are not adverse to using it.I guess I am from Missouri. Please, if you are a professed atheist, do not tell me you are not adverse to real debate but show me with your actions. I cannot say I have seen this as to date. I have just seen the opposite. I believe that a true willingness to debate and reflect on what is being debated reflects true moral courage. I also feel a lack of willingness is a sign of cowardice. I also realize that many among us, even the most bravest among us, may have acted in a cowardly way at some point in their life. This is the human condition. I would hope though that a change of heart would be seen as an act of true courage if any of those among us have acted in a less than courageous way in regards to showing a true willingness to debate. I would ask that this courage be demonstrated through their actions and they would consider change the results of any actions they may have taken so that true debate can occur.I realize that some may wish to debate me on this but I would like to see some action and a gesture of good faith in this regard. I cannot say that anything less will do. Words will just not suffice and a change in action is necessary. If those among us who have used suppressive measures wish to look back on their actions and make changes in regards to those actions it would be a step in the right direction. So if you feel this message applies to you and you are willing and able to reverse an action that you made so true debate can continue I do think it would be the right thing to do. I would also ask those who agree with me, whether they be professed atheist or Christians to encourage those who they see acting in a obstructionist manner in regards to debate to ask those particular individuals to act in a more noble way and reverse any action they may have taken to impede true debate so true debate may occur or continue. I also realize that those individuals who are obstructionist may not listen to those who ask them to change at first. Yet history shows us that persistence can and often does change those who act in a obstructionist manner by asking them not merely to give mental assent to the idea of true debate but to show it through their actions. I will certainly encourage you in this regard because it simply should not be tolerated in any place that it is occuring.Sincerely,Ken

I note that you have posted the same message to two other threads.I also note that the Jonah thread was closed down in part because of your excessive editing of the otigninal post. If there was another reason it was your continued refusal to argue in good faith. Your answers tpo Brian concentrated on superficial points that you felt that you could answer and ignored other, more serious, points. Your posts were also marked by a distinctly hostile attitude.There was no real debate. You had no evidence to show that the Jonah account was genuine history, and the scientific plausiblility was low enough that you felt that miracles were a likely answer. You did not even acknowledge many of the requests that you should produce evidence that the account was historically accurate to justify the "it happened" you placed in the thread title.So no debate was stifled - because no real debate was taking place. You were simply unable to hold up your end.

Ken, I think that most people would say that you are without doubt free from intellect.Brian.

I don't know if I agree with this.However: I not only agree with this, but I think Ken's Jonah and the Whale thread was about the worst example of a non-debate ever.Ken, I have to wonder what your life must be like. Have you ever considered listening to what people are telling you, so you can get some idea of how you come across? That thread was the most incredible example of posting without a clue I have ever seen.

I was referring to Ken's "suspicions"
" I cannot say I trust your motives for wanting to address minutiae over substance. Even if true, and I do not believe the motives you stated are the real motives..."
(Post 139)However there is also his habit of accusing others of indulging in logical fallacies or even being "bitter" (does post 106 seem "heavyhanded" or "bitter" to ANYONE other than Ken ? Or any nore so than some of Ken's OWN posts ?)

I was being technical, just because the thread was so bad that I could see us being nitpicked (at least by Ken) over any overstatement.I understand why you would say what you did, but I like your rewording better.

As I am a Christian I realise that I don't fit into the category of person that you are appealing to, but I want to comment on this whole sorry saga. THERE WAS NO DEBATE TO STIFLE!! If a first year undergrad presented me with a work as poor as the "essay" you posted, I would refuse to make the effort to mark it on the basis that they had put no effort into writing it! There's no evidence of logical thought, analysis, basic understanding of your own subject or even a rudimentary grasp of the difference between fact and supposition. So, there was no attempt to shut you up just because you were posting facts that were unpalatable to atheists, rather because you were spouting unmitigated garbage and didn't even have the wherewithall to realise it when it was pointed out in black and white. On that basis there was no point in letting the thread continue and it can in no way be construed as censorship. Sorry if my opinion doesn't fit in with your campaign, but you did ask!

To Trixie:I appreciate your input but I would say the following to give more context:1. I do not feel as though you are adressing the content in my post that ask if a moderator debate and moderate in the same string at this location:http://EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses. -->EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.Here are the specific abuses I cited:{Long cut and paste removed by Admin TL--you can read his "specific abuses" at http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=86&p=2. Point #2 that follows is also a repeat of that post, but I left it in as it was duplicated here.}2. Not all share your estimation of my post. Here is what one person said:Skeptick
MemberPosts: 176
From: USA
Registered: Feb 2004
Message 25 of 145 02-05-2004 04:01 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Awesome series of posts, Ken!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You're doing a fine job on this topic; you go dude. You show no signs of discouragement or loss of control despite the fact that it's virtually impossible to debate these guys on Biblical terms alone. Just like the children of Israel; they saw the pillar of fire, heard God's voice, their shoes/clothes didn't wear out even after 40 years of use, were fed by manna from heaven, and on and on; they were eyewitnesses of the power of God, but yet they still rebelled. The evidence of God was "in their face" but yet they still worshipped "other" gods even though those "gods" showed no evidence of any power or miracle producing ability. Your debating skills and discipline are about the best I've seen on this forum; I'll be keeping up with you!
If an ancient Athenian were here, he would probably bow low before you. (Acts 17:22-23)"3. Brian continued to use the logical fallacy of criticizing style over substance even after I asked him to stop.4. Brian's tone was poor. He said for example that I never read the Book of Jonah in his critique.5. He clearly do not read the essay closely.6. I was asked to provide addtional evidence. I did. I was more preoccupied on providing evidence than I was on editing to make sure there were not juxtapostions and misspellings.7. If I want certain portions of my material published there are spellcheckers and I clearly showed that Brian the spelling Nazi misspelled the word minutiae and he said that minutiae was substantive because he wished to dwell on style over substance. Next, I am not a bad speller. I can spell hard words like minutiae! I won 4rth place in a spelling Bee in 6th grade (and no I do not need a medal or a chest to pin it on). In short, I do not want or need a spelling Nazi to attempt to lord his spelling prowess over me because he does not want to deal with more substantive matters.8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. Again, I was more preoccupied with providing evidence (Josephus, Museum director, science instructor at Seaworld, academic paper, etc). I think substance should have the priority in the initial stages at the very least. Besides I only wish to publish the material that is less widely known and is subject to modern myths (whale gullet size/science instructor at Seaworld/Museum Director) in all likelihood since most of the other information is widely available.9. EVC Forum is not an academic journal and so I do not feel Brian has a right to editiorialize in terms of non content especially since I never asked him to.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-28-2004][This message has been edited by AdminTL, 02-28-2004]

No, I haven't addressed you question as to whether a moderator should moderate and take part in a thread for the simple reason that that is not what this particular thread is about!!! Check out your original post in this thread. Your comments about moderators moderating and debating in the same thread is actually your OTHER thread!!!! Call me cautious, but I thought that you would like an answer to the question in the same thread as the question!!! Strewth!!!OK, so one person has said nice things about your post. So what?? If truth is based on how many people say nice things about a subject then maybe ALL research should be thrown in the bin and that includes Biblical research. Forget research, just see how many people agree with you and if there is one, you must be right? Tell me you're having a laugh........please. I've read Skeptick's message and I don't agree with it and no matter how many times you copy and paste it in your messages, I won't change my opinion because repetition doesn't change minds.

To: Trixie1.Anyone can say there was no substance to my essay and do it in a generalized way. That is easy. I could say that your critique had no substance. Demonstrating it is far better. I will say that in forums that were better balanced between skeptics and Christians I got very favorable reviews although I got one here too. It seems as though beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Atheist and Christians of a more liberal theology do not like my essay. Christians of a more conservative theology tend to like it. Regardless it invariably generates a ton of post with or without my input if the site has traffic. That is exactly why I wanted to dwell on substance rather than logical fallacies like genetic fallacies or style over substance.2. I realize that what is always popular is not necessarily or even probably true. I also realize that what is true is often not popular especially when it comes to putting it in practice. I just wanted to provide some context in a forum that seems dominated by skeptics or those who profess to be Christians but take a more theologically liberal view.3. I have no problem debating in a forum where there is not unfair censorship. I can use satire to shut down the use of logical fallacies although it gets some people upset. I do not resort to calling people "idiots" or any other lowball tactics though although I cannot say the same of those who wanted take issue with my essay. It seems to me that if anything the people who use the lowball tactics should be censored. Unfortunately, they seem to be doing the moderating though. I will say that AdminAsgara did not resort to senseless name calling though.[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-27-2004]

Yes, it's easy to say there was no substance in your essay without providing proof or examples. Yes, demonstrating it is far better AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BRIAN DID!!!!! Except he did it in such a way that he actually tried to help you make it better. He was polite, he was helpful and most of all he was patient. I have to say that I agree with every point that Brian made about your essay, but I feel no need to repeat it all. If you want a demonstration of why your essay had no substance, go back and read what Brian wrote, but this time read it without thinking he's out to get you - try imagining that he's an editor wanting to publish your work and is helping you strengthen your evidence and your way of presenting that evidence.As for your nonsense about liberal Christians not liking your work as much as conservative Christians, the reason I don't like it is because it claims to be something it isn't. It has no logic in it, it has no decent references that I can go and look at to find out if you've interpreted them corretly, it contradicts itself, half the time I'm not sure just what you're trying to argue so I don't even know if I agree with you or not, in summary I know what I think but I don't have a clue as to what you think. I would love you to show that Jonah and the whale happened, but quite frankly your essay falls so far short of that that it's worse than useless in the form it's written.I'm going to look out a wee bit of an academic paper for you and let you see how to reference your work properly. It's nothing to do with religion, it's science, but it demonstrates the use of references to back up your statements. Back soon.

Here you go, Ken. This is a small portion from

Reeves et al., (1993) Molecular cloning and characterization of 13 out genes from Erwinia carotovora subspecies carotovora: genes encoding members of a general secretion pathway (GSP) in Gram-negative bacteria. Molecular Microbiology 8 (3), 443-456.

These include: Pul proteins (PulC-PulO) from Klebsiella oxytoca, required for pullulanase secretion (Possot et al., 1992; d'Enfert et al., 1989; Reyss and Pugsley, 1990; Pugsley and Reyss, 1990); Out proteins from Echr, involved in Pel and Cel secretion (He et al., 1991); Xps proteins from Xanthomonas campestris, involved in endoglucanase, pectinase and protease secretion (Dums et al., 1991; Hu et al., 1992); YscC from Yersinia pestis, which is involved in YOP secretion (Michiels et al., 1991); Exe proteins from Aeromonas hydrophila, required for aerolysin secretion and membrane assembly (Jiang and Howard, 1992) and Xcp proteins from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, involved in the secretion of exotoxin A, lipase, alkaline phosphatase, phospholipase and elastase (Bally et al., 1991; 1992). Components of other systems, involved in transmembrane transport of macromolecules other than extracellular enzymes and toxins, also exhibit similarity with Out proteins. These are: VirB-11 from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, required for Ti plasmid transfer (Ward et al., 1988); PilB and PilT from P. aeruginosa involved in type IV pilus assembly and retraction respectively (Nunn et al., 1990; Whitchurch et al., 1991), TcpJ from Vibrio cholera, required for pilin (TcpA) processing (Kaufman et al., 1991) and proteins encoded by the comC and comG operons from Bacillus subtilis which are required for competence for DNA uptake (Albano et al., 1989; Mohan et al., 1989).

Every single assertion made is referenced and shows where the authors of the paper found their material, in fact they cite the very bit of research which discovered the assertion they are making. that means that anyone who wants to see how true the assertions are can go back and read the original piece of research. Then they can make up their own minds as to the validity of the present authors' assertions. This is how authors provide evidence for assertions based on other people's work and how a reader can distinguish between ideas of the present authors and previous authors.

The string is titled intellectual freedom and debate strings. I have links to support my post. That is what the rules state you should do. I did it. But more importantly, you are straying from the topic of the string.I also felt as if you glossed over this:EXAMPLE 1:...............
EvC Forum: Should moderators debate and moderate in the same debate? I say there are abuses.
...........Lastly, if possible there should be equal representation of atheist and christian moderators especially in highly charged rooms like "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy". Ken, I've asked you not to cut and past entire replies to multiple threads....I've taken the liberty of cutting out this huge c&p and link to another instance of it. - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-28-2004]

Trixie is right, Ken, in that you're trying to address the moderators debating and moderating the same thread in the wrong thread. I deleted another of your long cut and paste jobs (and replaced it with a link), which was an attempt to turn this thread into that thread. If people want to discuss your "abuses" by the moderators, they can do so in that thread.You can do that, too.

The problem is solved.I found out there is a forum with no moderators. I also can make commentary in forums without engaging in a more formal debate.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]