You are openly trying to convert people to atheism should we ban you too?
Perhaps I've been unclear. Arguing in favor of a given set of ideals because one's logic has led one to believe in them is no crime to me. Rather, I object to relentless proselytization, underhanded arguments, and the substation of private conviction for demonstrable reason. Da Blob was guilty of all these crimes, and I believe that I've said as much earlier. Nevertheless, I will below explain the reasoning that led me to being in favor of Da Blob's banishment more clearly.
One of Da Blob's main goals, if not his main goal, of posting on INTPf was to convert others to his point of view, he openly stated that he: wanted to proselytize rather than debate, didn't care if his beliefs were internally inconsistent or illogical, wouldn't accept any criticism of them, believed them just because he believed them, and was wiling to use any means necessary to convert us. Such means, to my knowledge, ultimately included emotional torquing, personal attacks, and ruthless derailment of every thread that he could sink his talons into. We
tried reasoning with him, but he openly rejected reason. We
tried temporarily banning him, but he only returned with a vengeance. And we
tried bearing him, but it was like having an endless infomercial playing on the forum. So, with a heavy heart, we permanently banished him from the forum so that the rest of us could have peace. Da Blob was a broken record, and we took him off the player.
As for what I do, I am not an ideologue driven by blind faith, nor am I committed to spreading atheism simply because atheism is atheism. Most importantly, I am not an atheist: I am an agnostic about God in general due to the impossibility of disproving all possible Gods and atheistic about the Gods of which I know due to logical inconsistencies in the texts in which they are described. Next, I have arrived at my present philosophy through the most ruthless and exacting logic that I can muster, and I don't feel particularly attached to it, unlike Da Blob, who would not and perhaps could not be reasoned with, and who was completely and utterly attached to his faith.
Moreover, I do not seek to "convert" my opponent "to atheism" when I debate, I seek to compare his or her arguments to mine and correct any fallacies in either without regard to whether doing so changes my ultimate beliefs, and if my opponent demonstrates that I've made an error, as I inevitably will and do-- I'm only human-- I admit that I've erred, adjust my argument, and carry on with my new thesis. Da Blob, on the other hand, retreated into solipsism-- a fallacious defense in itself, mind you, for the errors were almost always found in material claims-- whenever we conclusively demonstrated an error in his ideas, and openly admitted to using underhanded tactics in his arguments.
In short, Da Blob didn't care about what he could demonstrate. He cared about what people believed, and would do anything to ensure that they believed what he wanted them to. That is, short of cruelty, perhaps the greatest crime that one can commit in the exchange of ideas. But I? I just care about what I can demonstrate, and if caring about such a thing means debating on one side of an issue or another, then just as well, for discourse can be thrilling.
QED: Seeing as Da Blob is guilty of these crimes, and I am not, my logic therefore does not lead to my banishment.
I am not for pushing people one way or the other. I am not against banning Da Bob however, if this is your reason you should be banned too. Just say what good for the gander should be good for the goose.
As I've demonstrated, arguing in favor of religion wasn't my only reason for favoring the banishment of Da Blob.
-Duxwing
Anyone in this situation I would like to see fully state their case all with Q&A. Do they wish to continue what is objectionable to many? Do others find this objectionability not objectionable? Would the accused when faced with ostracism decide to modify his behavior? 
As for myself, I place little value in Philosophies other than my own and will not be posting much in the new subforum, if indeed, it is just not a snide and disingenuous means of discouraging open-minded discussion...
