Care to Comment on our Recent Polls?
This is the place to do so if you wish.
I had caught one or more Christians poisoning the well by coming in from several different anonymous proxy servers to vote negatively on the first poll. There were fifteen that came in from one of these servers during a short period of time. This made the poll completely unreliable. It still isn't anywhere near scientific, but I'm interested in hearing from our honest readers, so I'll try again.
You'll notice that the poll now doesn't allow a skeptic reader to say this site is bad. It may be. If so state your reasons here. I am of the opinion that honest readers wouldn't say this of us unless they were Christians. And I'm also of the opinion that even Christians, if they were honest, could say this is a good site even if they disagree. If I'm wrong about any of this then I only ask skeptics who think this is a poor site to state your reasons why here. And while you're at it please tell us why you visit us if the site is so poor. Why would you do that?
To anyone disappointed that there's no longer an option for a skeptic to say this site is a poor one then you only have a Christian or more who repeatedly voted negatively on the previous poll for this.
Cheers.
I had caught one or more Christians poisoning the well by coming in from several different anonymous proxy servers to vote negatively on the first poll. There were fifteen that came in from one of these servers during a short period of time. This made the poll completely unreliable. It still isn't anywhere near scientific, but I'm interested in hearing from our honest readers, so I'll try again.
You'll notice that the poll now doesn't allow a skeptic reader to say this site is bad. It may be. If so state your reasons here. I am of the opinion that honest readers wouldn't say this of us unless they were Christians. And I'm also of the opinion that even Christians, if they were honest, could say this is a good site even if they disagree. If I'm wrong about any of this then I only ask skeptics who think this is a poor site to state your reasons why here. And while you're at it please tell us why you visit us if the site is so poor. Why would you do that?
To anyone disappointed that there's no longer an option for a skeptic to say this site is a poor one then you only have a Christian or more who repeatedly voted negatively on the previous poll for this.
Cheers.
22 comments:
I wish there was a category for: "It's a Good Site: I'm A Christian." I'd vote that instead of "C: It's a Good Site." I like the straight-forward debate and discussion.
If these alleged Christian hackers messed up the poll, I would just can the whole thing. Its just as likely that some stupid little kids will check D/F with no rational reason to do so. At any rate, the poll is worthless because your prime audience can't vote negatively.
John, it’s very revealing when you must state: “…more Christians poisoning the well by coming in from several different anonymous proxy servers to vote negatively on the first poll….but I'm interested in hearing from our honest readers, so I'll try again.”
And:
“And I'm also of the opinion that even Christians, if they were honest, could say this is a good site even if they disagree.”
Since the terms “Morals”, “Ethics” and “Truth” are used extensively to prove Christianity is superior to anything the secular world has to offer, it’s a sad day for both their God and Christianity when an atheist must rebuke the believers about their own morals and ethics!
david, the poll is not worthless, but it definitely isn't completely accurate. Take it for waht it is. I just do not think a skeptic would say the site is poor, although your point is well noted when you say Christian young people might give it a D or a F. So noted, although that's not my problem. It's yours. Teach young children well.
christians being deceptive eh?
some of that "atheist relative morality" rubbing off or is just them emulating their god?
Of course,
they are just emulating the machiavellian sliding-window-relative-morality of YAHWEH the almighty.
John,
You appear to be assuming for us both that Christians were the culprit. I certainly wasn't referring specifically to Christian children. I think kids deface the internet for fun regardless of what they or the website believe. Regardless, your historical Jesus posts have turned a few skeptics away I'm sure...could have been them too.
You said: just do not think a skeptic would say the site is poor
Guess we'll never know will we? This post discourages skeptics from opposing you because it already assumes they are stupid for even reading the site if they think its poor.
Oh and also I know an Objectivist who may have voted otherwise. :-)
david, given some of the blogs you follow I'm not so sure that YOU weren't one of the culprits and that you are now crowing at your achievement.
Yes, I am fairly sure Christians did this. While an occasional skeptic might possibly think this is a poor site, no skeptic would go to the trouble of voting numerous times by anonymous proxy that it was.
And as far as a skeptic voting that DC is poor goes, I have asked him or her to state the reasons why and also state why they visit a site they think is poor. I do not do this. Why would anyone?
John,
Obviously a skeptic may think the site is poor overall but enjoy a particular author or topic.
If we are just tossing stuff around, why not the possibility that you are the culprit? Much like Nero allegedly did, you blame the Christians so you can rig the poll. Of course I'm being sarcastic, but the poll is definitely worthless.
I say the best way to get good numbers for both is have seperate categories for skeptic and Christian for all of them. If you sign as a skeptic, you must explicitly type "I deny Jesus Christ as Lord" into a text box. It would be cool to see some accurate data about what skeptics/Christians think.
Dawson Bethrick (who has been invited several times to post at DC) recently told me:
"You’re right. In fact, sometimes I wonder what some of the DCers stand for. It’s a given that they’re against Christianity. I don’t read them very closely though, so there’s probably a lot that I miss."
So folks like him may "keep up" with you guys, but may not take the time to explain their reasons since inevitably that would turn into a lengthy debate over methods and epistemology.
What are you trying to do here, david? Dawson said: "I don’t read them very closely though, so there’s probably a lot that I miss."
Duh. What kind of opinion is that by his own testimony? Something I can safely ignore until he is better informed, although there is nothing saying he needs to bother becoming informed about us. I am not informed about him. So what?
And to say the poll is "worthless" is itself a worthless opinion. You cannot think very well can you? No wonder you believe! Something isn't worthless simply because it is not a scientific poll, nor because some options aren't allowed for good solid reasons, especially when it is demonstrably false that this is a poor site. Now someone might think it's a poor one who has not read anything much at all of what we write, but then that's an uninformed opinion. I only want informed opinions.
If it is a poor site I haven't heard even one single argument from you suggesting this to be the case, and I haven't heard one reason from you as to why someone would even bother visiting a site again once they have concluded it was poor.
The fact that you seem to care makes me suspicious of you. Why should you even care?
There isn't a way to do what you suggest anyway. Of those people who vote, I want to know what they think. I'm finding it interesting.
Oh, and if a skeptic thinks this is a poor site because he or she disagrees with one person on it, me, about whether Jesus existed, then that's just stupid. Anyone who thinks a site is poor unless that site agrees with them about everything will think all sites are poor, so such an opinion can be safely ignored too.
You really have not thought this through. Again, no wonder you believe. The same kind of thinking skills are required for you to come to the truth about that which you believe. You should second guess what you believe based on how you argue your case here.
Cheers.
And to say the poll is "worthless" is itself a worthless opinion. You cannot think very well can you? No wonder you believe! Something isn't worthless simply because it is not a scientific poll, nor because some options aren't allowed for good solid reasons, especially when it is demonstrably false that this is a poor site. Now someone might think it's a poor one who has not read anything much at all of what we write, but then that's an uninformed opinion. I only want informed opinions.
a) Its obviously worthless because the results don't tell you anything that the bias beforehand didn't.
b) If not a) then what do you think can be derived from this poll? How do you know that the pollsters are "informed?" One could easily be misinformed and vote A because you're an intelligent skeptic who they respect.
c) If it is "demonstrably false" that this is a poor site then really option F is worthless isn't it? So the outcome of the poll will be to show that no skeptics think the site is poor, and any Christians who do are dumb. How objective!
If it is a poor site I haven't heard even one single argument from you suggesting this to be the case, and I haven't heard one reason from you as to why someone would even bother visiting a site again once they have concluded it was poor.
I think its a great site, probably the best on the net.
The fact that you seem to care makes me suspicious of you. Why should you even care?
Hoping to persuade you to do another poll that actually gives some good data, and that all readers will participate in. You would need to use an external poll gadget and embed it in the webpage...but its certainly possible to do what I described.
You really have not thought this through. Again, no wonder you believe. The same kind of thinking skills are required for you to come to the truth about that which you believe. You should second guess what you believe based on how you argue your case here.
Such rhetoric! Please feel free to demonstrate how my argumentation provides a basis for second guessing my beliefs.
If I used your logic then I would never second guess myself because I would assume that those who disagreed didn't have a good argument or were being dishonest.
david, if what you say can be done then I'm interested in it. Could you please give me specifics on doing a poll as you suggest?
BTW Thanks for saying you like this site.
yes - it's one of the best on the web - I'm a Christian
I'll contact j-walk who has done some pretty complex polls in the past, but here is something that may help:
A slightly outdated but useful source of info about blogspot:
http://bloggerfordummies.blogspot.com/2007/10/polls-for-blogger.html
As for external gadget, the one I hear the most about is Vizu
Also Polldaddy seems pretty legit. You can have "conditional branching" so if someone chooses a certain response it changes the path that the survey goes.
I'll let you know if j-walk has any suggestions.
This site is poor because the creator of the site is dishonest, irrational, and hypocritical. You are only 'honest' (if one can call it honesty) when it suits you, when you are engaged in debate you substitute your 'honesty' for lies, hypocrisy, and illogical reasoning. The fact that you can, with a straight face, assert that if Christians were honest they would say this site is good, even if they disagree, is laughable and dishonest in its own right.
Loftus is not the only dishonest, irrational hypocrite that writes for this poor site, Touchstone seems to be a fan of sloppy research as well.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/08/vox-day-fractal-intelligence-delusion.html
This site is not good, it is just a bunch of ex pastors trying to use their authority to pass off half truths, hypocrisy, and dishonesty.
I pity you guys.
Theological Discourse,
I don't understand why you chose that nickname, since apparently you prefer food fights to rational discussion.
It would help if you would perhaps substantiate some of the assertions in your last post. How is the site dishonest, irrational, and hypocritical?
just seen your polls, it is just more proof of your double standards.
F: Its terrible, I'm a Christian.
how convenient that it doesn't say
A+ Best on the web I am an atheist/agnostic/skeptic/humanist
Thank you for proving my point hypocrite.
David said:
Theological Discourse,
I don't understand why you chose that nickname, since apparently you prefer food fights to rational discussion.
It would help if you would perhaps substantiate some of the assertions in your last post. How is the site dishonest, irrational, and hypocritical?
my name suits me just fine thanks, perhaps you should check out the genocide thread where Loftus, avoids questions and points, dishonestly tries to change the subject multiple times, lies, then abandons the conversation based upon an irrelevant and incorrect assumption, then his cheerleaders hypocritically apply their criticisms to me but no body else.
Then perhaps you should actually READ my post where I gave proof of Touchstons sloppy research, and of course the hypocritical poll options.
Maybe you should, ya know, look?
I am a Christian (obviously) and I appreciate this site. I find it to be well done and on topic. :)
Oh, I say obviously because anyone who frequents the site would know that...due to the nature of my posts...
TD,
Accusing John of lying is a serious charge, you wanna back it up?
David is right you seem to be more interested in food fights than honest discussion and debate. A number of people, including myself, attempted to engage you and we were simply ignored.
As far as the polls go, hey John is the blog owner, if he wants to put up a poll, he can. No one said that you had to participate.
David is right you seem to be more interested in food fights than honest discussion and debate. A number of people, including myself, attempted to engage you and we were simply ignored.
How dare you accuse me of ignoring you when Loftus did the EXACT SAME THING to me, yet you do not criticize him.
hypocrite.
"I had caught one or more Christians poisoning the well by coming in from several different anonymous proxy servers to vote negatively on the first poll."
Funny that John ,but really im not that surprised.My experience with many christians has taught me its WISE to realize, they are not always so very often to be trusted as being totally honest.
But then should we expect that much truth from those that cling to a book full to the brim with many quite obvious lies and fictional stories, that for so long have been indoctrinated to be actual factual truths.
Besides proof of the dishonesty of Christianity is everywhere.Its only taken 126years for the church of England to apologize to Darwin,suggesting it was only a misunderstanding .It would be far to truthful to just admit to really having been just to blatantly pig headed to ever bother to think otherwise, until the stupidity of it all with time had just became all to much for them to continue on with their head stuck in the sand letting everyone see they were like Ostriches.
How long has it taken for Catholic leaders to admit 'horrible' abuse by priests?,years and years thats how long!.Their pride and money was worth just so much more than honesty and truth.
Benny Hinn and Creflo dollar and so many many more continue to fleece as many people as possible ,not many so called good Christianly folk really seem to care about it that much that often either do they?.It seems they all are far to busy converting Africans that need food ,to be bothered with cleaning up their own back yard first.After all a hungry African willing to say "praise the lord" for the pay off of offerings of food and clothing ,does wonders for the world statistics of believers of faith polls doesnt it. :)
Where as cleaning up the back yard might in fact have the opposite effect.Not good for statistics! :(
The list of christianly deceit really is endless,but i wont bother to post it all, personally i think its just so blatant its all become rather boring really.
What i find a little surprising John is that you seem to be a little surprised, by certain possible deviance`s in your poll.
However i do know its often just so hard to believe that those that all read such a supposedly honest book, could ever be so likely to be so dishonest.
But then maybe that`s all just part and parcel of really fully coming to terms with the realities and realizations within our Deconversion.
I also at times find it hard to come to terms with the FACT, that even within my own christian family there is such a tendency to often take part in lies and deceit.
Its maybe something often thought of as heavenly deceit ,sanctioned to be ok if its for the good of progressing the church and the belief.
What ever it is i personally think its both disgusting and really sad.
Post a Comment