Talk:Jesus/Comment or arbitration

message: It is about time we complete the cycle here. We have tried multiple times to reach Rob on many levels, and we are not getting anywhere. Instead of moving forward and learning to accept policy, Rob has reverted to "I will not let anything other than my point-of-view reach the outside world. Ever."
I suggest that we either place a request for comment or a request for arbitration to try, once and for all, to bring this to a close. Whereas I have no prior experience trying to launch one of these, I am more than willing to take the steps necessary under Wiki policy. --Avery W. Krouse 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, RfA is not an option at this point. RfA is a last step measure for dispute resolution, and you've certainly not tried them all. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, I wasn't certain if someone had already done an RfC on him (I have looked but haven't found one yet). I knew that a couple of admins have stepped in now and again against him, but I have striked the RfA portion above. An RfC is the method we would pursue. (My bad!) This page can remain as a discussion board just in case we ever need to venture down that road (Wales-willing we never will.) --Avery W. Krouse 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment. His worldview is not unique. Its just a new name being applied to it, in accord with the concept of memes. The idea is that by using this name it will become a meme and thus help to spread its worldview-a widely accepted worldview at that. Giovanni33 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize that the underlying worldview is not unique, but seems to have been carried over into a social movement. From what I've read, the meme was created to establish a greater social identity beyond just athiest, agnostic, secular humanist et al to extend to all who did not consider themselves religious; later extended to the religous who were essentially naturalistic et al as above. The idea behind the meme was to take the commonality of the worldview and extend it to a social movement. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it takes Bright beyond mere science. Arch O. La 06:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. It's an activist movement. Giovanni33 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. As I note below, I wasn't sure whether to classify it as activist. Arch O. La 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Deskana that others steps for dispute resolution should come first. I also would recommend one of my own self-disciplines. Anyone who wishes to pursue action should first go back and read all their own comments as if they were the other party. Is there anything to be apologized for? etc. Once all that is settled, see if the person has changed behavior. If not, proceed. --CTSWyneken 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Disclaimer: This is filtered through my own worldview as a religious radical centralist. Radical centrism attempts to foster cooperation through communication and compromise. While I recognize the gray fallacy, I believe that most dichotomys/dillemas are false, and that the truth usually lies along either the mean or the excluded middle. As a Lutheran I profess the adage, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I also recognize that much of the following is subjective.
Thesis: Robert Steadman (User:Robsteadman) brings a unique worldview to the Jesus discussion by serving as a "devil's advocate" of sorts, forcing us to examine the subject from viewpoints we may never otherwise have considered. However, his points often become lost through conflict. His behavior is often disruptive, leading to repeated edit wars, talk-page fights and interuption of discourse.
==Professed worldview of Robert Steadman==
Robert Steadman's worldview differs significantly from that of the most active participants, many of which are either post-Enlightenment rationalist (including a number of secular historians) or metaphysical (including a range of religious views).
Rob's professed worldview is:
1. Athiest: No god/s. Some athiests confirm the historical, secular carpenter turned rabbi named Yeshua. Rob, however, does not. 
2. Bright: This is a complex meme set that arose from the perception that the Enlightenment was somehow left unfinished, and thus the Bright meme is inherently transformational. Brights seek to improve the world through promotion of their core beliefs. It is not known how long the Bright meme has existed; Carl Sagan was arguably a Bright (cf. The Demon Haunted World). The word, however, arose from a relatively recent (c. 2003) social movement professing this worldview. The movement also has a historic connection to the theory of memetics. The word "Bright" was coined to refer back to the Enlightenment. The connotation that members are "Bright" while the earlier movement was merely "lit" is intentional. Reference was also made to the way the meaning of "gay" has changed over time, originally meaning "happy" and now meaning "homosexual." Brights similarly seek to claim the term "bright" for themselves.
2.1 Brights value naturalism over supernaturalism. This is arguably their primary value.
2.2 Brights value rationalism over irrationalism, and reason over emotion. "Rationalism" refers to the Enlightenment definition, ie logical positivism and/or scientism. Formal logic is less likely, as Rob had refused to consider philosophic proofs.
:Brights are not opposed to formal logic. I think they would embrace logic. Its the premise that is assumed in any former proofs that would represent points of contention with other worldviews.Giovanni33 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The remark was not about Brights in general but Robsteadman in particular, and may be more about behavior than ability. Slrubenstein repeatedly asked him (on his user talk page: the evidence is here) to critique established philosophical proofs for/against God (e.g. the cosmological and the ontological arguments) and offer responses based on formal logic. Robsteadman responded by saying ""that's hilarious" "these theroies NOT proofs." and Slrubenstein came to the conclusion that Robsteadman's "atheism is not rational, it is dogmatic." I admit that this might mean that Rodbsteadman was unwilling rather than unable to offer a response. But, that's exactly the kind of behavior that has led to conflict on the talk pages. Arch O. La 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Then, I would disagree with Rodbs with this, but I suspect its an understanding of the logical term "proofs." I think might be objecting to it in the sense of evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, instead of another meaning of the word about an application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derive conclusions. Atheists would regard those logical proofs to be refuted.Giovanni33 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but again it's more about behavior than worldview. Rob's "that's hillarious" can be taken by some as a personal attack. Slrubenstein took it as further evidence of dogmatism. Arch O. La 07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand what is meant by "idealism." Its a philosophical world view in direct constranst to materialism. Thus, for someone to be 100% a materialist necessitates a 0% Idealism. It doesn't mean that everthing must rely on cold hard facts. There is supposition, logical inference, and starting points, which are assumptions about our senses, and reality. Its the same philosophical world view that science adopts for its methodology. Giovanni33 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheerfully noted and amended. Also, I understand that Bright is based on the scientific worldview, but that the meme was created to carry it forward into a social category (which is why the meme was created, if I read the Wired article correctly.) (I understand the dichotomy, but think of it more as a materialist/spiritualist dichotomy. I should have remembered my Plato :)) Arch O. La 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archola's editorial 

message: Robert Steadman's worldview differs significantly from that of the most active participants, many of which are either post-Enlightenment rationalist (including a number of secular historians) or metaphysical (including a range of religious views).
Rob's professed worldview is:
1. Athiest: No god/s. Some athiests confirm the historical, secular carpenter turned rabbi named Yeshua. Rob, however, does not. 
2. Bright: This is a complex meme set that arose from the perception that the Enlightenment was somehow left unfinished, and thus the Bright meme is inherently transformational. Brights seek to improve the world through promotion of their core beliefs. It is not known how long the Bright meme has existed; Carl Sagan was arguably a Bright (cf. The Demon Haunted World). The word, however, arose from a relatively recent (c. 2003) social movement professing this worldview. The movement also has a historic connection to the theory of memetics. The word "Bright" was coined to refer back to the Enlightenment. The connotation that members are "Bright" while the earlier movement was merely "lit" is intentional. Reference was also made to the way the meaning of "gay" has changed over time, originally meaning "happy" and now meaning "homosexual." Brights similarly seek to claim the term "bright" for themselves.
2.1 Brights value naturalism over supernaturalism. This is arguably their primary value.
2.2 Brights value rationalism over irrationalism, and reason over emotion. "Rationalism" refers to the Enlightenment definition, ie logical positivism and/or scientism. Formal logic is less likely, as Rob had refused to consider philosophic proofs.
:Brights are not opposed to formal logic. I think they would embrace logic. Its the premise that is assumed in any former proofs that would represent points of contention with other worldviews.Giovanni33 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The remark was not about Brights in general but Robsteadman in particular, and may be more about behavior than ability. Slrubenstein repeatedly asked him (on his user talk page: the evidence is here) to critique established philosophical proofs for/against God (e.g. the cosmological and the ontological arguments) and offer responses based on formal logic. Robsteadman responded by saying ""that's hilarious" "these theroies NOT proofs." and Slrubenstein came to the conclusion that Robsteadman's "atheism is not rational, it is dogmatic." I admit that this might mean that Rodbsteadman was unwilling rather than unable to offer a response. But, that's exactly the kind of behavior that has led to conflict on the talk pages. Arch O. La 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Then, I would disagree with Rodbs with this, but I suspect its an understanding of the logical term "proofs." I think might be objecting to it in the sense of evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, instead of another meaning of the word about an application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derive conclusions. Atheists would regard those logical proofs to be refuted.Giovanni33 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but again it's more about behavior than worldview. Rob's "that's hillarious" can be taken by some as a personal attack. Slrubenstein took it as further evidence of dogmatism. Arch O. La 07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand what is meant by "idealism." Its a philosophical world view in direct constranst to materialism. Thus, for someone to be 100% a materialist necessitates a 0% Idealism. It doesn't mean that everthing must rely on cold hard facts. There is supposition, logical inference, and starting points, which are assumptions about our senses, and reality. Its the same philosophical world view that science adopts for its methodology. Giovanni33 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheerfully noted and amended. Also, I understand that Bright is based on the scientific worldview, but that the meme was created to carry it forward into a social category (which is why the meme was created, if I read the Wired article correctly.) (I understand the dichotomy, but think of it more as a materialist/spiritualist dichotomy. I should have remembered my Plato :)) Arch O. La 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professed worldview of Robert Steadman

message: I am open to suggestions. Keep all comment belowArch O. La 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutions

message: I think we should just not engage Rob on:
1 -- Old, repeated arguments.
2 -- Personal Attacks.
3 -- Complaints that the majority are censors.
I would counsel not characterizing his comments in any way. Respond to them directly, ignore slights and just move on. It makes it really hard to argue against his behavior when we end up doing something similar. --CTSWyneken 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignore Mode