TrueScotsman

Regular Member
  • Content count

    2,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

TrueScotsman last won the day on May 1

TrueScotsman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

686 Outstanding

About TrueScotsman

  • Rank
    Infidel

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Philosophy, history, psychology, religious study, music, singing, hiking, reading, Wife, and my beautiful son and daughter. :)
  • More About Me
    Former Mormon, former Evangelical Christian, and present non-reductive naturalist atheist.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I do not.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,243 profile views
  1. TrueScotsman

    Non-religious minority

    The non-religious are an assortment of many different belief systems and political considerations, a group like the NRA is going to a lot more heterogeneous in their interest, as will the major religious minorities, and even the ethnicities like the Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, share a common cultural history. The non-religious are an assortment of marooned people who washed up on various shores over the course of modernity and the decline of organized religion. Out of all of those groups their interests, culture, history and beliefs are different from each other to a degree not shared by the others proportionally. I think this community could serve as a unifying point on certain issues, such as the continued separation of church and state, something which I think we could all agree upon across political lines and unite under the banner of not being religious. I just don't see it being a major factor in the majority of political issues, and therefore not a significant marker of demographic interest.
  2. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Comparing the expression of atheistic beliefs to bigoted behavior is not really any kind of double standard. Everyone is on their own journey, and there is no duration or set of philosophies one should arrive at after deconversion. Myself and other former Christians arrive at atheism, if people can't accept that or feel threatened in a discussion with me, then they should let me know personally. I don't really know of any Post Modernist Ex Christians here, and just because some of us agree more often doesn't mean we are some organized faction. This kind of disengenous speculation only drives the divide.
  3. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Online internet forums are private communities hosted by a particular individual or group of individual who create terms of conditions which are agreed upon by all who participate. Sometimes, these forums, such as this one have particular purposes to be and outlet for people to come and recover from the effects of being a Christian. These individuals represent nearly all demographics, there are some who are LGBT, Conservative, Marxist, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, of every ethnic ancestral history, and obviously many men and women deconvert from Christianity. We should purpose the conditions upon which we come to agree to discuss with one another, and such agreements about respect, which for some of us when breached significantly will induce a backlash, which I would argue is what you've seen manifested here. I certainly do not think this thinking is analogous to society at large, and the moderation should differ more to the common sense interpretation of moderators who are trusted members of the community, rather than over legally define every last topic that should be discussed. We should discuss immigration, and cultural interactions of ancient civilizations, but we as former Christians should not undignify the humanity of people because of those contingent circumstances where they found themselves thrust into this world. Surely we can discuss these things without trolling and overly inflammatory rhetoric.
  4. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    I loved your post!
  5. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Everyone keeps conflating freedom of speech for the entirety of society, with how this single forum with a particular purpose should be moderated. Words like authoritarianism (which reflect a system of government) are being used as labels with which to slander the other side of the opinion, when I feel like the central point of our arguments are being ignored. ExC is and has been losing members, they are sick of the trolling, the constant bickering over extremely questionable content posted in ToT. It turns out that things are changing on that front, which is why me as Truthseeker are still here posting. Every situation has its own particular nuance so moderation should be done by an unbiased party based upon the application of common sense. I don't think we should be intending to shut down a whole laundry list of topics, just taking out unnecessary and inflammatory elements to the discourse. This will help those with perhaps more fringe beliefs be better understood, but also not make our discussions so terrible for members of this site to read or engage in.
  6. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Have you read any of the criticisms of that book? I think Steven Pinker is appealing to Libertarian minded people (Sam Harris also is a Libertarian and even supports Neoconservative geopolitics so not really on the Left). He fails to see the growing disorder that is taking place after the end of the Cold War and that the future challenges far surpass anything we have yet negotiated in terms of our ability to collaborate as a species. There has been progress no doubt, but there is nothing about the universe which ensure that will continue or not end abruptly. Nor has that progress been equally distributed.
  7. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    The value of a personality test like the MBTI is not in providing pinpoint accuracy, but giving at least a template for which to chart common human temperamental human differences which fundamentally change the way we individually experience the world. If we want to take consciousness seriously, then we have to consider just how radically different cognitive states for individuals who perhaps might have a a difference in cognitive temperamental disposition and how that has influenced by the events that happen to us and the cultural beliefs which we use to interpret those experiences. Human beings are remarkably complex and different, and those complexities exist across cultures to the entirety of the human race, and insulting that dignity and ability hard worn over time for all people's of the world by the sweat of mothers, fathers and communities to survive in this crazy world. I will divide between what a person believes and also regard personality factors, which most often correlate and I think for good reason. We are observing human cognitive neurodiversity, and part of the utility of human communication is that it can be corrective, and say, no that's wrong. But when you then get caught up in a cultural history with hundreds of years of oppression of certain emergent social communities in the modern time, it can be tiresome to have to chalk intellectual cruelty of that variety with much reasoned effort. Further contextualize it to the era of Trump, and for me it seems weird that people around here are now concerned about the divisiveness along cultural and political lines. Some people in America are trying to go a direction which I believe are fundamentally wrong, and I will not go quietly into that future, so excuse me for my impassioned concern. Somethings that happen in this world should not be met with impassioned reason, we need to expand our consciousness. I too read Mein Kampf like DI, one really had to understand his vision of that he outlined in those pages to see the rational trajectory he took to implement his deranged ideas about the superiority of the VolksDeutsche and their need for Libensraum. As well as his perversion of truth as a political and propagandist weapon to mobilize for his cause. I think a person should encounter every manner of belief which exists in society (some fetishes could be passed up though I'm sure), but I think that should be done in certain contexts for particular beliefs. For instance I wouldn't invite Richard Spencer to my class to explain economic nationalism, I would invite an expert in comparative economics to speak on it. We aren't idiots, Richard Spencer's beliefs are antithetical to society as it is organized now, and to give him a platform to propagate his ideas is just a bad idea. Not only will it offend most sensible people, but it would give him an outlet to recruit and propagandize to students. No one can show up to the 21st Century after what happened in the 20th Century and think that such ideas should be encountered with an open and interested mind.
  8. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    All human beings have individual dynamics between their interactions with other people, which are shaped after, in the cases of this forum, very many previous interactions. Let's not pretend this is the first episode, and many of the ideas and thinkers expressed by this poster reflect some degree of ethnic nationalism, which in my opinion is a repugnant anti-human idea that is at it's heart racist in that it asserts the superiority of the European race. And I don't know if you've paid attention, but much of those sentiments are currently being perpetrated in our society by the administration whom they are major supporters of. You don't seem to be as much of a political animal as some of the others, perhaps I just see the present situation as more dangerous and bad than you do, and therefore have a different context to these interactions. I've never in RL ever devolved to ad hominems in a political debate, people tend to conduct themselves much more civilly in face to face interactions when their is a social consequence for being an asshole perhaps. That's probably pretty normal, people tend to be more argumentative and impatient online because it is in part slightly more unfiltered and honest, because no such consequences really exist with anonymity. Which also shields trolls, which I am accused of when I am merely being honest about what I really think. Even if it is mean or a name, I only reserve such for people whom I think have really earned it, which I would never use for 99% of the members on this site. I judge an individual by his whole, not just single isolated events. Just like in everything, the lot of the arguments should be weighed against each other, and not just conclude after making one argument.
  9. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    He's posting controversial things, because it perhaps reflects what he really thinks. You should seriously go check out the people he supports, just to get a taste or that. Lauren Southern or Tommy Robinson, I don't think he is trolling more so expressing his views accurately. If I am not here, others chime in with largely the same exact thoughts, I am perhaps the most aggressive in response because I am probably the most politically minded of those on the Left here, and pay attention to what goes on in right wing circles. We have members here who have transgender kids, which is essentially the practice Fwee called pedophilia and a disease. Not pedophilia itself, but the LGBT ideology which he thinks infects kids with this transgender belief. Obviously the truth is much more complicated than that, but a rational discourse is pretty much impossible when the introductory content is so inflammatory. Pretty soon there might be a lot of people ignoring the content he posts or agreeing, that will be because anyone who disagrees will have left.
  10. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Its not intolerance for people we don't like, its intolerance for divisive and repugnant ideas which belong in the dust bin of history. I will defend the first amendment right of Nazi's to not be locked up automatically without committing a crime, but if they showed up to my forum (hypothetically) preaching the next Jewish holocaust, then they would get booted. Intolerance for intolerant ideas is not a double standard, it is the logical application of the sentiment which seeks to be as inclusive as possible. Is this current policy making the forum more or less inclusive for potential Ex-Christians? I would argue less, and the trolling and threads with very questionable content pretty much make that so. As the exodus and statements of many other posters besides myself make plain.
  11. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    This is forum not a form of government, and I disagree with your interpretation of Fwee's thoughts. He didnt say he thought pedophilia is a disease, he said that all of this gender nonsense that the LGBT community is pushing on children is a disease, and pedophilia is just another orientation to them. I'm sorry, there is just no way for you to spin Fwee's post and it not be incredibly insulted and indeed prejudiced. I also found much of your suggestions about homosexuality and pedophilia quite wrong, there are plenty of men who abuse children who are totally otherwise straight, sexual abuse goes way beyond sexual attraction and into much murkier waters of power and domination. Nearly every forum has rules for the extreme limits of what is tolerated. This shouldn't be a model for a system of government, which seems to be the false analogy you are drawing. The rules should reflect the specific goal and aim of this site. That is if you want to have a site which is appealing to all manner of deconverted, not just those of a right wing or libertarian disposition. People shouldn't encounter bigoted content with an open mind, treating it equally to any other idea expressed. Some ideas are simply not compatible with a civilized society, and in addition is deeply offensive to many posters here. So you can keep the unlimited freedom, and it will either turn into an echo chamber or someone else will come around and fling the mankee. Or some kind of change, such as a separate private forum, or increased moderation. I doubt either of those will happen knoeing this place, but I just thought this discussion could use some diversity of opinion.
  12. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    I don't see how one is a bigot for calling blatantly homophobic content bigoted. There is no prejudice involved, just a completely appropriate response for the substance of the content. Which is unfortunate the term is used here, but there seems to be copious amounts of instances where it is honestly warranted. I usually also make arguments against their statements, to both demonstrate why the idea is repugnant, but also why it is wrong. Though recently I have lost the patience for that, as I don't think a good portion of the content is worthy of engaging with. Tolerance shouldn't extend to all ideas, certainly all ideas should be learned about through appropriate settings, but giving a platform to harmful ideas is simply a bad idea. Which is why Sam Harris refuses to have Stefan Molyneux on his podcast, whose ideas are reflected in many posters here.
  13. TrueScotsman

    Tolerance vs intolerance - where is the middle ground?

    Captain of the Thought Police, here. I feel like the regulars on this site are far more Libertarian in sentiment (including all of those who have spoken here so far) so someone of my temperament's opinion should be noted. Take it or leave it, I guess. On the usage of bigot, since this seems to be the hottest topic in this discussion about free speech so far. I used the term selected for a certain individual, based upon things he stated, which I thought were perfectly befitting of the adjective. I was not alone in this assessment, and reflects my concern for such rhetoric populating these boards. Marty's account doesn't even exist anymore. There are many here who are perhaps LGBT, have loved ones who are, and to have them regarded as diseased and truly disgusting people on this forum is just plain questionable. It should be strongly derided by posters here first of all, if not rejected as content for viewing. I believe in the first amendment's restriction on the ability of Congress to make laws inhibiting the freedom of speech, but I don't think that every institution should universally accept all viewpoints on their platform. If we lived in the Weimar Republic and the Nazi's came on into your bar and loudly proclaimed the dawning future of Hitler's Germany, you'd be an asshole if you didn't kick them out. There are plenty of places online which are totally accepting of discussing all the differences about one race being better than another, or how one sex is totally awful, or that homosexuals are diseased and disgusting people. If you continue to allow this place to be one of them, then I assure you basically anyone of a temperament similar to mine is going to left out of discussion, since we will have long since fled. Regarding JP's comments about people jumping in and making assumptions and trying to stir stuff up. Fwee even clarified his comments specifically confirming his belief that he believes it is a disease, and has a long history of posting similar things, so its not like the thread should be considered a blank slate. I would be down for moderating against strong personal insults, if bigotry, racism, and other outright offensive forms of xenophobia were also moderated for. I guarantee you that if this doesn't happen, then the diversity in opinion here will only decline further. Perhaps create a password created forum that functions similar to ToT, except have a moderated political forum. In the age of Trump, wishing people could just get over politics at the present is just wishful thinking. These issues are really important, and to avoid them all together or make them too toxic to engage in is simply not going to work IMO.
  14. TrueScotsman

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    You only seemed to watch the beginning of the lecture, which involved generating irreducibly complex patterns. Phenomena in nature are like that to some degree, in that you can't merely make predictions from one scale to another, but we have scientific tools which enable us to look at all the various scales and observe those phenomena on their own terms. The dynamics that cause differences in the warping of Spacetime, would be velocity, gravity and locality. If I was a million light years away, we could not agree on what time was "now." Complexity doesnt make it harder to state what is a fact, it just means our explanations for some phenomena will simply be longer. Mathematically explaining a rock versus a rat, is going to be far more complicated, yet we have the tools and language to unveil a whole host of facts about rats. Just like the rest of nature.
  15. TrueScotsman

    The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

    Science can prove many things objectively, when something can be demonstrated objectively to many subjects, it is called a fact. Your blood transports oxygen to your organs and extremities. We cannot as subjects see oxygen nor see it in the liquid blood, but we can use several objective methods of studying the molecular makeup of blood to see this is the case.