A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Balerion]

Indeed, with (Q) being one of them - the challenge was to stop lashing out and attacking the theists on the site, especially outside of the religion subforum. It has been a subject of much contention - at times, some of our more... vocal... atheists would attack theists for their views, even when said views had nothing to do with the subject at hand (case in point, (Q)'s stalking of S.A.M.)

There was no challenge. It was baiting and flaming. For whatever reason, you're turning a blind eye to it. I say "for some reason," but we all saw you participating In the lying and delusion, too, so no real surprise there. Theists, as usual, attacking atheists.

 

[Kittamaru]

There was no challenge. It was baiting and flaming. For whatever reason, you're turning a blind eye to it. I say "for some reason," but we all saw you participating In the lying and delusion, too, so no real surprise there. Theists, as usual, attacking atheists.

Balerion, let me stop you right there; I'm not going to go into that bullshit with you, plain and simple. If you want to say I was lying or delusion, prove it. And I mean that as it stands - prove it, or retract the statement. if you are unable, or unwilling, then retract the statement.

I'm done with people trying to stereotype any and all theists as some sort of crazy ass extremist... there are plenty of us who hold our beliefs and yet do not feel some irrational compulsion to attack those of different faiths. I know you are smarter than to make such a broad-reaching generalization without at least attempting to back it with fact.

And yes, I'm frustrated... I have striven in my life to balance my faith and science while accepting gracefully criticism and critique... but the level of blatant attacks against theists in general is appalling. I get it; ya'll think we're nuts for believing in something you can't see, substantiate, or prove... that doesn't mean you have to trample us.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion, let me stop you right there; I'm not going to go into that bullshit with you, plain and simple. If you want to say I was lying or delusion, prove it. And I mean that as it stands - prove it, or retract the statement. if you are unable, or unwilling, then retract the statement.

Okay, I'll prove it:

I'm done with people trying to stereotype any and all theists as some sort of crazy ass extremist...

Proven.

I mean, seriously. Maybe you could technically argue the above is a non-sequitur, but the number of times you've made seemingly-unrelated claims such as this suggests intent. You're trying to paint my position as, well, just as you put it--that I think all theists are extremists. I said nothing of the sort. I implied nothing of the sort. I meant what I said: This is another case of a theist attacking an atheist. I mean, okay, you don't like people acting as if theists are crazy ass extremists? Then how the hell could you possibly defend this statement:

Alright, I'm calling you all out.

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult?​

That's perfectly okay, according to you, but when I make a specific claim about a specific line of attacks, you accuse me of generalizing. Meanwhile, the above actually is a generalization.

So it's good for you, but not good for us.

there are plenty of us who hold our beliefs and yet do not feel some irrational compulsion to attack those of different faiths. I know you are smarter than to make such a broad-reaching generalization without at least attempting to back it with fact.

And there's the rub: I never made any such generalization. Ever.

So we come to either you lying, or you genuinely not being capable of having this discussion intelligently. If it's the former, I say knock it off; if it's the latter, I say get lost. You tell me which.

And yes, I'm frustrated... I have striven in my life to balance my faith and science while accepting gracefully criticism and critique...

If this thread is any indication, you're not capable of accepting criticism or critique of your faith. I mean, look at what just happened. I say the thread is another example of theists attacking atheists, and you twist it into some attack on your faith.

but the level of blatant attacks against theists in general is appalling. I get it; ya'll think we're nuts for believing in something you can't see, substantiate, or prove... that doesn't mean you have to trample us.

Where are such attacks happening? I'm not seeing it. Even Q, for as loud as he is, attacks religion, not the religious. (Like you said, the idea rather than the person)

 

[GeoffP]

With me as the primary mod here? Truthfully, I'd allow it.

Kitta, you can't be saying you're okay with Tiassa attacking entire groups of people. That's not allowed at SF, or hasn't been.

 

[Kittamaru]

Okay, I'll prove it:

Proven.

I mean, seriously. Maybe you could technically argue the above is a non-sequitur, but the number of times you've made seemingly-unrelated claims such as this suggests intent. You're trying to paint my position as, well, just as you put it--that I think all theists are extremists. I said nothing of the sort. I implied nothing of the sort. I meant what I said: This is another case of a theist attacking an atheist. I mean, okay, you don't like people acting as if theists are crazy ass extremists? Then how the hell could you possibly defend this statement:

Alright, I'm calling you all out.

Would you please stop deliberately misrepresenting atheism as a brainless cult?​

That proved nothing except that you are unable to identify what I am talking about, which is this: Atheists, such as (Q), have been trolling and assaulting Theists, such as S.A.M., for quite some time. Not all atheists have been attacking all theists, obviously, but enough have done so to make it seem like the atheists, collectively, of this site accept or condone such things. Can you imagine how that looks to an outside viewer?

That's perfectly okay, according to you, but when I make a specific claim about a specific line of attacks, you accuse me of generalizing. Meanwhile, the above actually is a generalization.

So it's good for you, but not good for us.

And there's the rub: I never made any such generalization. Ever.

So we come to either you lying, or you genuinely not being capable of having this discussion intelligently. If it's the former, I say knock it off; if it's the latter, I say get lost. You tell me which.

There was no challenge. It was baiting and flaming. For whatever reason, you're turning a blind eye to it. I say "for some reason," but we all saw you participating In the lying and delusion, too, so no real surprise there. Theists, as usual, attacking atheists.

That, sir, is a pretty big generalization. I'm not saying that no theist has every attacked an atheist on this site... but what I read out of your statement is that you are lumping myself and those of us who have not in with the few that have.

I also await an additional try at providing evidence of my "lying and delusion".

If this thread is any indication, you're not capable of accepting criticism or critique of your faith. I mean, look at what just happened. I say the thread is another example of theists attacking atheists, and you twist it into some attack on your faith.

Because saying "theists attacking atheists" is NOT a critique of my faith, or faith in general - it is, at best, a critique against people who follow that faith (the theists). And a very generalized one at that.

Where are such attacks happening? I'm not seeing it. Even Q, for as loud as he is, attacks religion, not the religious. (Like you said, the idea rather than the person)

As you wish:

There is more; if you really wish, I could take the time to go through (Q)'s sordid history and dig them up if you need further evidence.

Kitta, you can't be saying you're okay with Tiassa attacking entire groups of people. That's not allowed at SF, or hasn't been.

I can't say I'm happy with how he worded it... but I understand what he was saying. A few "rabid" followers of the ideal were painting the rest in a poor light.

 

[Kittamaru]

PS - I know some of those images might seem a bit odd without context - the one about the wiki was a rather... heated... discussion in the mod forum about having any sort of theology in the SciForums Wiki.

 

[Balerion]

That proved nothing except that you are unable to identify what I am talking about, which is this: Atheists, such as (Q), have been trolling and assaulting Theists, such as S.A.M., for quite some time. Not all atheists have been attacking all theists, obviously, but enough have done so to make it seem like the atheists, collectively, of this site accept or condone such things. Can you imagine how that looks to an outside viewer?

And I say that you're full of shit. Simple enough.

That, sir, is a pretty big generalization. I'm not saying that no theist has every attacked an atheist on this site... but what I read out of your statement is that you are lumping myself and those of us who have not in with the few that have.

Yes, you are included in that mix. And no, that is not a generalization.

I also await an additional try at providing evidence of my "lying and delusion".

So I give you evidence, now you want more? Sigh.

In no particular order:

There is this post in which you attempt to frame my argument as being that no one "persecutes religion" when you well know that it was that the atheists here do not attack the religious.

There is this post where you reference this strawman post by Randwolf, and include a false correlation of your own.

And your woeful and probably willful misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause.

And your attack on the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in which you called them "psychotic."

And you defending a moderator who said that another member "can only deal with short sentences." (Not to mention your further ignorance of the Establishment Clause, as well as the backhanded "I know you're smarter than that" comment)

Should I go on?

Because saying "theists attacking atheists" is NOT a critique of my faith, or faith in general - it is, at best, a critique against people who follow that faith (the theists). And a very generalized one at that

It wasn't general. It was specific. I pointed to you as an example of it. And I didn't say "the theists." I said "theists."

As you wish:

[pics of Q fighting with Sandy from 2007]

There is more; if you really wish, I could take the time to go through (Q)'s sordid history and dig them up if you need further evidence.

Wow, you have a few out-of-context posts of Q from six years ago getting into it with arguably the most vitriolic Christian fundie to ever disgrace our forums.

Try again. If the problem is with Q, then just say so. Certainly you can't defend such a broad statement if the target was so narrow.

I can't say I'm happy with how he worded it... but I understand what he was saying. A few "rabid" followers of the ideal were painting the rest in a poor light.

And as I said, I'm not surprised you support such a generalized attack on an entire group of people you disagree with.

We've replaced Syne with Syne Jr.

 

[Kittamaru]

And I say that you're full of shit. Simple enough.

And the ad hominem continues... I really should start issuing you infractions for these.

Yes, you are included in that mix. And no, that is not a generalization.

Indeed? Well, we shall let the "evidence" speak for itself, hm?

So I give you evidence, now you want more? Sigh.

You provided no such evidence... shocking that I should demand some while you slander my name?

In no particular order:

There is this post in which you attempt to frame my argument as being that no one "persecutes religion" when you well know that it was that the atheists here do not attack the religious.

One- "when you well know that it was that the atheists here do not attack the religious"... seriously? I'm assuming you are missing a "that" between here and do not... in which case, yeah, you're blinded to it... I've even posted quotes of it for your pleasure.
Two - How is that me "lying" or being "delusional"? I fear I don't understand your rationale here.

There is this post where you reference this strawman post by Randwolf, and include a false correlation of your own.

And how, may I ask, is that a false correlation OR a strawman? It was providing evidence that some atheists DO, in fact, call for religion to be destroyed/dismantled... the fact that I posted evidence of atheists stepping in to help raise money for treatment of a pastor who was assaulted by an atheist zealot is somehow a false correlation to that point (that some Atheists willingly attack Theists)? WHAT in the name of LOGIC are you trying to pull here?

And your woeful and probably willful misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth... there is no "willful misunderstanding"; in fact, when Aqueous ID (one of the few here willing to speak rationally and explain logically his objections to things, instead of resulting to willful misrepresentation, such as what you are doing right now) gave me his explanation of it, I explained why I thought that the reason for the lawsuit was faulty and even admitted that the only correlation I saw was the fact that the person in question was paid through government funds.

And your attack on the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in which you called them "psychotic."

What WOULD you call them, then? They have brought so many lawsuits about... there are MUCH better ways to try and enact change than suing everyone you disagree with. I could call them greedy, as it seems they end up often pursing some sort of monetary recourse (and I would love to know how much they keep from these suits, if any)

And you defending a moderator who said that another member "can only deal with short sentences." (Not to mention your further ignorance of the Establishment Clause, as well as the backhanded "I know you're smarter than that" comment)

Well, considering the members entire complaint was that the post was "too long"... it would seem the "short sentences" comment was entirely justified. I'm sorry, if you are incapable of having a discussion, perhaps a scientific forum isn't exactly the place to be. As for the "backhanded comment", you can take it as such if you will - however, if you are really incapable of seeing my point of view on that, even if you disagree with it, then perhaps I was wrong.

Should I go on?

I'm still waiting for any kind of evidence in the first place, rather than misrepresentation (or, if I may be hopeful, perhaps simple misunderstanding on your part? or are you really intent on continuing this smear campaign?)

It wasn't general. It was specific. I pointed to you as an example of it. And I didn't say "the theists." I said "theists."

Indeed it is a generalization (theists is a generalized term for people of religion, no matter what religion). And indeed you said "theists"... I wasn't claiming you said "the theists", but rather identifying "people who follow that faith" as "the theists"... I thought that much was obvious? Are you willfully attempting to misrepresent here (claiming that I am misquoting you) or did you simply misunderstand the point of my use of parenthesis (last I checked, parenthesis aren't used to quote somebody... I could be wrong)

Wow, you have a few out-of-context posts of Q from six years ago getting into it with arguably the most vitriolic Christian fundie to ever disgrace our forums.

And the personal insults CONTINUE. Remind me why I'm not issuing infractions for this blatant disregard for the rules? And no, they are hardly "out of context"; in fact, they apply directly to the conversation at hand. I'm also not going to waste my time uploading dozens of pictures to showcase the entire thread just for your amusement; the fact that the posts were made, regardless of any additional context you may want, showcases the personal attacks that (Q) has made.

Try again. If the problem is with Q, then just say so. Certainly you can't defend such a broad statement if the target was so narrow.

Well, to be fair, I could lump you right in there with (Q)... though you are more along the lines of what I would call "abrasive" rather than "abusive"... the difference being intent. With (Q), it is pretty obvious the personal attacks are intentional and with malicious intent... with you, I believe (perhaps against my better judgement) that it is simply your emotional attachment to the argument overriding your better logic and causing you to lob insults when actual evidence is lacking.

And as I said, I'm not surprised you support such a generalized attack on an entire group of people you disagree with.

How is it generalized? I even made the distinction that a few bad apples were spoiling the barrel. It seems I was wrong about you, Balerion - you have tossed logic out the window in favor of baseless accusations, misrepresentation, lies, and general slander...

We've replaced Syne with Syne Jr.

Such as that...

Indeed, it appears we DO have a Syne Jr... just thankfully, this time, he isn't a moderator, so his rage and failure in the realms of logic and valid debating / argumentative tactics is completely impotent. Thank God... I couldn't imagine someone like you or (Q) having the ability to ban people.

If you intend to continue to try and spindoctor and lie like this, I would suggest you start your own forum board where you can attempt to twist the truth all you want. However, on these forums, intellectual dishonesty is frowned upon.

 

[Balerion]

And the ad hominem continues... I really should start issuing you infractions for these.

LOL! That's not ad hominem, chief. But if you want to start throwing around infractions for ad hom, start issuing them to yourself:

with you, I believe (perhaps against my better judgement) that it is simply your emotional attachment to the argument overriding your better logic and causing you to lob insults when actual evidence is lacking.​

Or is this going to be just another instance of mods punishing members for things that they do themselves?

You provided no such evidence...

That is a lie. I just provided it.

shocking that I should demand some while you slander my name?

In print it would be libel. But I'm not doing that.

One- "when you well know that it was that the atheists here do not attack the religious"... seriously? I'm assuming you are missing a "that" between here and do not...

No missing words. Don't see how it would have changed the meaning of the sentence, however.

in which case, yeah, you're blinded to it... I've even posted quotes of it for your pleasure.

You posted six-year-old quotes of Q fighting with Sandy, and provided no context. What is that supposed to prove?

Two - How is that me "lying" or being "delusional"? I fear I don't understand your rationale here.

Your misrepresentation of my position. I'm not repeating myself here, Kitt. If you missed it the first time around, read it again.

And how, may I ask, is that a false correlation OR a strawman?

Sigh. Perhaps I overestimated you. Maybe this really is you simply not understanding. If that's the case, then I apologize. But my original advice to you was, if this was the case, to get the hell out of here, because you're only disrupting the conversation.

It was providing evidence that some atheists DO, in fact, call for religion to be destroyed/dismantled... the fact that I posted evidence of atheists stepping in to help raise money for treatment of a pastor who was assaulted by an atheist zealot is somehow a false correlation to that point (that some Atheists willingly attack Theists)? WHAT in the name of LOGIC are you trying to pull here?

And again, you're off-topic. You said that the problem was atheists assaulting and attacking religious people, and that atheism is dangerous because of it. What Randwolf brought up were people who criticize aspects of religion. He linked to an article by a person misrepresenting the arguments of Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris, and a quote by Dawkins stating it was an obscenity to identify children by their parents' religious denomination. This has nothing to do at all with atheists attacking or assaulting religious people. This has to do with atheists criticizing religion. The idea, remember?

And the article you linked to specifically demonstrated that the attack had nothing to do with atheism:

The alleged attacker, James Maxie, 28, told local police he came to Bridge Community Church in North Hampton, Ohio, with his girlfriend to try to “regain my faith in God,” according to the Dayton Daily News. Maxie described himself as a “militant atheist” on his Facebook page.

When Hayes asked Maxie’s girlfriend if she felt “safe” with Maxie, he allegedly became enraged and began beating the pastor. Hayes suffered a broken nose, facial lacerations and bruises.​

Clearly, this is just an abusive douchebag who got pissed when the guy suggested he was being violent to his girlfriend. Atheists reaching out are doing so out of human kindness, but also because of political pressure--they want to make sure it's known that this guy wasn't acting on behalf of these groups he belongs to.

Quit trying to put words in my mouth... there is no "willful misunderstanding"; in fact, when Aqueous ID (one of the few here willing to speak rationally and explain logically his objections to things, instead of resulting to willful misrepresentation, such as what you are doing right now) gave me his explanation of it, I explained why I thought that the reason for the lawsuit was faulty and even admitted that the only correlation I saw was the fact that the person in question was paid through government funds.

When AID explained it to you, your reaction was much as it is right now: To stamp your feet and throw a tantrum. Your arguments are asinine, and you know better.

What WOULD you call them, then? They have brought so many lawsuits about...

Case in point. Even thought I and Aqueous explained your error to you, you attempt to defend your disgusting words. You honestly think "psychotic" is a reasonable thing to call them because they're pursuing legal action?

there are MUCH better ways to try and enact change than suing everyone you disagree with.

And again with the misrepresentation. Again, am I supposed to believe that you're lying, or that you're really not capable of understanding what's going on here? Do you need it explained to you again, or would it be a waste of time? The only way to enact change of this sort is through the courts.

I could call them greedy, as it seems they end up often pursing some sort of monetary recourse (and I would love to know how much they keep from these suits, if any)

If you cared to educate yourself on these things you speak so vehemently agianst, you'd know they're a non-profit organization.

But yeah, I'm sure "greedy" is a great adjective.

Well, considering the members entire complaint was that the post was "too long"... it would seem the "short sentences" comment was entirely justified.

He wouldn't be the first to complain about rambling posts by Tiassa (or Bells, for that matter), and no, complaining about rambling posts does not make an insulting comment like "You can only handle short sentences" justified. You're okay with it becuase you agree with it, which is a terrible standard to set as a moderator.

I'm sorry, if you are incapable of having a discussion, perhaps a scientific forum isn't exactly the place to be. As for the "backhanded comment", you can take it as such if you will - however, if you are really incapable of seeing my point of view on that, even if you disagree with it, then perhaps I was wrong.

More ad hominem. Are you going to be infracting yourself, Kitt?

\I'm still waiting for any kind of evidence in the first place, rather than misrepresentation (or, if I may be hopeful, perhaps simple misunderstanding on your part? or are you really intent on continuing this smear campaign?)

Another lie from you.

Indeed it is a generalization (theists is a generalized term for people of religion, no matter what religion). And indeed you said "theists"... I wasn't claiming you said "the theists", but rather identifying "people who follow that faith" as "the theists"... I thought that much was obvious? Are you willfully attempting to misrepresent here (claiming that I am misquoting you) or did you simply misunderstand the point of my use of parenthesis (last I checked, parenthesis aren't used to quote somebody... I could be wrong)

Theists is not a generalized term. It is a specific term for a specific group of people. I mean, hello?

And the personal insults CONTINUE. Remind me why I'm not issuing infractions for this blatant disregard for the rules?

Excuse me, what disregard for the rules? Referring to someone as a vitriolic fundie? Do you perhaps not understand what those words mean?

I sense that you're just being dramatic so you can act like you have a reason to infract me. Give it a rest, Kitt, I haven't broken any rules. Certainly none that you haven't broken in this thread worse than I have, at any rate.

And no, they are hardly "out of context"; in fact, they apply directly to the conversation at hand.

:facepalm:

That's not what "out of context" means, Kitt. It means--I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult!--it means that the section of the conversation you showed was not enough to explain what was going on. It shows Q calling her a cult-follower, but it doesn't show what lead to these comments. Knowing Q--and knowing Sandy--it's unlikely that he was unprovoked, or that he was merely shitting on her for being a Christian.

I'm also not going to waste my time uploading dozens of pictures to showcase the entire thread just for your amusement; the fact that the posts were made, regardless of any additional context you may want, showcases the personal attacks that (Q) has made.

I see. So when it's time for you to actually support your argument, you can't be bothered.

Well, just know that this is a big reason I say you're being dishonest.

Well, to be fair, I could lump you right in there with (Q)...

No you couldn't. Who have I ever attacked simply because of their religious beliefs? Who has Q ever attacked simply because of their religious beliefs?

though you are more along the lines of what I would call "abrasive" rather than "abusive"... the difference being intent. With (Q), it is pretty obvious the personal attacks are intentional and with malicious intent... with you, I believe (perhaps against my better judgement) that it is simply your emotional attachment to the argument overriding your better logic and causing you to lob insults when actual evidence is lacking.

I don't disagree with the notion that I'm abrasive. I'm rude to rude people. Of course, it has nothing to do with emotion. (That's another one of them ad hominems) My disagreement with you is rooted in the fact that you are wrong, plain and simple. I'm also not attacking you personally, except to point out when you're lying or misrepresenting me. (Though I wouldn't consider that a personal attack)

How is it generalized? I even made the distinction that a few bad apples were spoiling the barrel.

Allowing a few bad apples to spoil the barrel is the definition of generalizing; you are basing your opinion of the whole on the actions of a few (or in this case, of one).

And Tiassa didn't even bother to make that distinction.

It seems I was wrong about you, Balerion - you have tossed logic out the window in favor of baseless accusations, misrepresentation, lies, and general slander...

More ad hominem...

Such as that...

What's the difference? You've locked a threat out of spite, you've threatened moderator action out of anger, you can't follow the rules you keep threatening to enforce, and you're making shit up about atheists.

 

[Bells]

Enough!

(Q) went over the line. Four pages worth of posts and every single one of them constituted an insult and/or abuse towards another person.

I was the one who threatened him with moderation for his behaviour. Declaring that Syne has been replaced with Syne Jnr when you know full well the lengths Kitta went to and what he went through to ensure a level of fairness in this sub-forum is a stupid and childishly low blow. It was also why I stopped engaging him in conversation in this thread several days ago. I had hoped he'd stop. Instead, he switched his abuse and anger towards others. He knew exactly what he was doing. And he knew full well what the repercussions would have been. The only reason Kitta banned him was because he was here and I was not at the time. I had written up my reasons for the warning in the back room, so all knew. That ban could have been from anyone.

To reiterate, no one is without criticism. To declare moral supremacy because of one's lack of belief is just as silly as declaring moral supremacy because of one's beliefs in a God. (Q)'s actions were tantamount to targeting abuse and insults towards people because they are theists, nothing more, nothing less. I shouldn't have to tell all of you that this is a silly strategy and not one that is supported on this site. He went beyond any level of acceptability. His entry into this thread was ignored by all, except Balerion, who commented on what he said. The rest ignored him and if you follow his progress in this thread, you'll see full well that each time he felt he was not getting attention, he would up the ante on his insults and abuse, until he got the attention he so craved. In other words, he was not provoked at the start of this thread. Frankly, he could have been banned for his comments well before any moderator spoke to him. But as is often the case, to simply disagree with certain members on this site is apparently an insult or a provocation. When Fraggle pointed out that he was acting stupid, which he was by that point, he saw that as an insult and provocation, which culminated in his telling Fraggle to "fuck off asshole" when Fraggle pointed out the definition of 'bigot' and to tell him he was acting like one, which he was.

Kitta did not threaten him with moderation.

On the contrary, Kitta gave him several chances, even a red card which under normal circumstances, means automatic ban, but Kitta gave him a chance. Instead he got worse after he was spoken to. Which is when I stepped in and advised him that if he continued to act in this way, then he would face a ban. As I said before, the only reason Kitta did it was because I was offline when (Q) got worse.

So if you have a problem with 'threatening him with moderation', speak to me, since I was the one who did it. Kitta did nothing wrong and instead, had tried to give him chance after chance.

If you have a problem with moderation or a moderator, there are several ways for you to address this, such as PM'ing the moderator in question, PM'ing the super-mods with your concerns, or other moderators, starting a thread in the appropriate forum, using the ticket system and requesting a review in the Modshell (which I know Balerion and GeoffP know how to use) and if you are still unsatisfied, PM the administrators with your concerns. The incorrect way is to continue to drive a thread off topic.

I hope this clears things up for you? If you have any questions, the please PM me or use the options available to you to complain about my threatening (Q) with moderation and stating he would be moderated if the need arises. Otherwise, please stop blaming the wrong person and most importantly, stop driving this thread even more off topic.

 

[Kittamaru]

LOL! That's not ad hominem, chief. But if you want to start throwing around infractions for ad hom, start issuing them to yourself:

That proved nothing except that you are unable to identify what I am talking about,​

Or is this going to be just another instance of mods punishing members for things that they do themselves?

Allow me to educate you on what constitutes an ad hominem attack:

1) appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2) marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.

Thus, you calling me "full of shit" and not providing any sort of evidence or even mention of the argument in question constitutes an ad hominem attack; more specifically, abusive ad hominem; ergo, you at attacking ME, not the ARGUMENT. Meanwhile, me stating that you have failed to recognize the problem at hand is a simple statement of fact, considering the evidence at hand.

That is a lie. I just provided it.

No, you didn't, as evidenced by the fact that what little you attempted to provide was easily rebuked.

In print it would be libel. But I'm not doing that.

Right, whatever helps you sleep at night.

No missing words. Don't see how it would have changed the meaning of the sentence, however.

Well, for one, it would be proper grammar that way... as for how it would have changed the meaning, I'm not sure because other than what I posted as my thought on it, I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to say.

You posted six-year-old quotes of Q fighting with Sandy, and provided no context. What is that supposed to prove?

Again, I thought this was pretty self explanatory - it shows how (Q) was, and still is, prone to abusive and random attacks against members and mods alike.

Your misrepresentation of my position. I'm not repeating myself here, Kitt. If you missed it the first time around, read it again.

I will repeat myself - you are failing in a logical capacity and are responding in an emotional and possibly intellectually dishonest one.

Sigh. Perhaps I overestimated you. Maybe this really is you simply not having the capacity to understand. If that's the case, then I apologize. But my original advice to you was, if this was the case, to get the hell out of here, because you're only disrupting the conversation.

Right, considering your inability or unwillingness to provide substantiating evidence for both your original claim and this one, I accept your conceding of the point.

And again, you're off-topic. You said that the problem was atheists assaulting and attacking religious people, and that atheism is dangerous because of it. What Randwolf brought up were people who criticize aspects of religion. He linked to an article by a person misrepresenting the arguments of Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris, and a quote by Dawkins stating it was an obscenity to identify children by their parents' religious denomination. This has nothing to do at all with atheists attacking or assaulting religious people. This has to do with atheists criticizing religion. The idea, remember?

Are you so desperate to try and strengthen your position that you want to try and deflect like this, or did you simply not read the articles in Randwolf's post? There are several examples, with citations, in those posts of people attacking religious people. For example:

The problems that Yaroslavsky outlined in his response were addressed in 1929 at the second congress. The CPSU Central Committee delegated to the LMG full powers to launch a great antireligious attack with the objective of completely eliminating religion from the country, granting them the right to mobilize all public organizations.[11]

The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[45] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[46] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."[47]

In 1929, the Second Congress changed the society's name to The Union of Belligerent (or Militant) Atheists.[8] At this Second Congress of Atheists, Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of Pravda, called for the extermination of religion "at the tip of the bayonet."[12] There, Yaroslavsky also made the following declaration:
It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.[13]

I do believe that is pretty damned succinct...

And the article you linked to specifically demonstrated that the attack had nothing to do with atheism:

The alleged attacker, James Maxie, 28, told local police he came to Bridge Community Church in North Hampton, Ohio, with his girlfriend to try to “regain my faith in God,” according to the Dayton Daily News. Maxie described himself as a “militant atheist” on his Facebook page.
When Hayes asked Maxie’s girlfriend if she felt “safe” with Maxie, he allegedly became enraged and began beating the pastor. Hayes suffered a broken nose, facial lacerations and bruises.​

Clearly, this is just an abusive douchebag who got pissed when the guy suggested he was being violent to his girlfriend. Atheists reaching out are doing so out of human kindness, but also because of political pressure--they want to make sure it's known that this guy wasn't acting on behalf of these groups he belongs to.

So you say that the attack had nothing to do with atheism... yet atheist groups are reaching out in order to distance themselves from this guy... okay then. It seems there are atheists out there worried they will be lumped with him, but perhaps you are right - perhaps this attack had nothing to do with religion or lack there of... or at least, I cannot definitively prove it, so I am willing to concede this point as a possibility, since short of us asking the guy while he is hooked up to a polygraph test we will never know for sure.

When AID explained it to you, your reaction was much as it is right now: To stamp your feet and throw a tantrum. Your arguments are asinine, and you know better.
Case in point. Even thought I and Aqueous explained your error to you, you attempt to defend your disgusting words. You honestly think "psychotic" is a reasonable thing to call them because they're pursuing legal action?

Indeed, much as I would decry the people that bring lawsuits against companies/corporations for things that should be common sense, such as "coffee being hot" or "Cruise Control on Recreational Vehicles NOT being AutoPilot"; they seem less out for change and more out for blood, something I would label as psychotic.
And no, since Aqueous ID brought some ACTUAL facts and evidence to the table AND presented them in a rational manner, I conceded that I could understand his point. I still do not agree with it and think that such a ruling is wrong, but by the letter of the law I can see where such a decision is being made.

And again with the misrepresentation. Again, am I supposed to believe that you're lying, or that you're really not capable of understanding what's going on here? Do you need it explained to you again, or would it be a waste of time?

indeed, there is more misrepresentation going on here... when do you intend to quit it and address the point at hand (that a frivolous lawsuit is not the most appropriate way to handle this perceived issue - perhaps they could have, I don't know, gone up to the school board/administration and pointed out where it was against regulation and seen if the administration intended to take action... as, you know, would make sense?) Tell me Balerion... do you sue a cashier at a store for theft if they accidentally short change you, or do you go back and point out the mistake in a respectful manner and ask to have it corrected? Do you sue McDonalds for services not rendered if they forget to put the toy in your happy meal, or do go back to the counter and point out the all to simple mistake and let them fix it?

If you cared to educate yourself on these things you speak so vehemently agianst, you'd know they're a non-profit organization.
But yeah, I'm sure "greedy" is a great adjective.

Indeed it would be... you can be greedy for more than just monetary things... sociopolitical power comes to mind.

He wouldn't be the first to complain about rambling posts by Tiassa (or Bells, for that matter), and no, complaining about rambling posts does not make an insulting comment like "You can only handle short sentences" justified. You're okay with it becuase you agree with it, which is a terrible standard to set as a moderator.

Right... and again YOU are misrepresenting here. Bells points in that thread were rather simply laid out. The true problem was the fact that he couldn't REFUTE any of her points, and thus tried to play the TL;DR card... which doens't fly here. Period.
Tell me Balerion... do you disregard a scientific study because it's "too long winded"? Did you ignore your teacher in history class because his lectures were "too long"?

More ad hominem. Are you going to be infracting yourself, Kitt?

Not at all, as once again you have failed to ascertain what ad hominem actually means. I stand by what I said; if you are incapable of bringing rock-solid FACTS to a SCIENTIFIC FORUM and carrying on a discussion without resorting to intellectual dishonesty and spindoctoring... then this is NOT the forum for you, as that kind of tripe is specifically AGAINST the established rules. It is possible, however, that you are simply attempting to argue Ignoratio elenchi.

Another lie from you.

Nope, but again, considering you are unable to substantiate your claim, I accept you conceding the point.

Theists is not a generalized term. It is a specific term for a specific group of people. I mean, hello?

No, it isn't. Theist is to Religion as Athlete is to Sports... Protestant is a specific term for a specific group of people. Orthodox, Baptist, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Anglican... THOSE are specific groups. Per Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
— the·ist noun or adjective
— the·is·tic also the·is·ti·cal adjective
— the·is·ti·cal·ly adverb

I think I understand why it is you dislike Fraggle Rocker so much... as the moderator of the Linguistics forum, he would absolutely tear you apart for such mistakes as this...

Excuse me, what disregard for the rules? Referring to someone as a vitriolic fundie? Do you perhaps not understand what those words mean?

I sense that you're just being dramatic so you can act like you have a reason to infract me. Give it a rest, Kitt, I haven't broken any rules. Certainly none that you haven't broken in this thread worse than I have, at any rate. [/quote]
If you had left it at "vitriolic fundie" then it wouldn't be an insult (or at least, not such an insult). However, once again, you are MISREPRESENTING THE TRUTH:

AWow, you have a few out-of-context posts of Q from six years ago getting into it with arguably the most vitriolic Christian fundie to ever disgrace our forums.

You are calling him a disgrace as well as a "bitter/malicious Christian fundamentalist"...

That's not what "out of context" means, Kitt. It means--I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult!--it means that the section of the conversation you showed was not enough to explain what was going on. It shows Q calling her a cult-follower, but it doesn't show what lead to these comments. Knowing Q--and knowing Sandy--it's unlikely that he was unprovoked, or that he was merely shitting on her for being a Christian.
I see. So when it's time for you to actually support your argument, you can't be bothered.
Well, just know that your point doesn't hold water without it.

I know full well what "out of context" means... and in regards to those posts, that is in full context. If you dont' believe me, fine. Then tomorrow (as it is now 1am and, honestly, I have more important things to do than argue credibility with YOU) I will go and make a panoramic of the entire discussion; granted, I know you will simply claim I've "edited out the parts that don't support my argument" or some other such excuse, but hey - I've only got so much retail space on my little 21 inch monitor... I can't fit an entire 5 page thread on that at once, so you'll have to deal.

No you couldn't. Who have I ever attacked simply because of their religious beliefs? Who has Q ever attacked simply because of their religious beliefs?

I point you, once more, the the fact that he fucking STALKED S.A.M. across the biology forum... or perhaps the fact that he LASHED OUT at even other moderators because of them having differing beliefs. As for you:

AWow, you have a few out-of-context posts of Q from six years ago getting into it with arguably the most vitriolic Christian fundie to ever disgrace our forums.

I don't disagree with the notion that I'm abrasive. I'm rude to rude people. Of course, it has nothing to do with emotion. (That's another one of them ad hominems) My disagreement with you is rooted in the fact that you are wrong, plain and simple. I'm also not attacking you personally, except to point out when you're lying or misrepresenting me. (Though I wouldn't consider that a personal attack)

Nope, that is not an ad hominem... my, you really don't know what ad hominem means, do you?
1) No, you are not "rude to rude people"... you are rude. Full stop. You cuss people out when you don't get your own way, insult them even when trying to "make peace" (does the phrase "Truce Fuckface" remind you of anything? Or perhaps "Stop being a cunt"?) and generally go out of your way to make people feel unwelcome.
2) Yes, you are attacking me (or rather, attempting to attack my character... failing miserably at it, but the attempt is still there) by misrepresenting me (Straw Man comes to mind).
3) It is quite obviously emotional, as you tend to be perfectly polite so long as people do what you want when you want it...

Allowing a few bad apples to spoil the barrel is the definition of generalizing; you are basing your opinion of the whole on the actions of a few (or in this case, of one).
And Tiassa didn't even bother to make that distinction.

Indeed, it IS a generalization... and one we would RATHER have people visiting this forum for the first time avoid making.
As far as Tiassa not "bothering to make that distinction"... I'm sorry, but by the third post in this thread (Aqueous ID's reply, and Tiassa's reply to that) I would have thought this distinction to be self evident.

More ad hominem...

You would have finally gotten it right... if only my statement was untrue or fallacious in some way. As it is, what I stated are mere facts, as represented by your own posts.

What's the difference? You've locked a threat out of spite, you've threatened moderator action out of anger, you can't follow the rules you keep threatening to enforce, and you're making shit up about atheists.

1) What thread did I lock "out of spite"? Oh, are you still pissy that I was originally going to move your (and others) off-topic comments into their own thread so as not to derail a discussion? Boo hoo, get over it, as that is a pretty standard way to contain intentional derailment of a thread.
2) Who have I threatened to moderate out of "anger"... and better yet, upon what grounds do you pretend to know that I am/was angry? If anything, most of the time when I moderate people I simply feel pity and/or sadness at the fact that it has come to such action.
3) Right, I have overstepped my bounds of the rules at times - I don't deny that, after all I'm not perfect. In my defense, it does become excessively difficult at times to dedicate the proper amount of time to the areas of the forum I am responsible for when I'm tied up defending myself from your libelous attacks though.
4) What is it that I've "made up"? I have provided numerous citations and references through this facade of a debate... what's your excuse for your intellectual dishonesty Balerion?

On that note, it is now 1:30am... I'm going to bed.

 

[Balerion]

Allow me to educate you on what constitutes an ad hominem attack:


Thus, you calling me "full of shit" and not providing any sort of evidence or even mention of the argument in question constitutes an ad hominem attack; more specifically, abusive ad hominem; ergo, you at attacking ME, not the ARGUMENT. Meanwhile, me stating that you have failed to recognize the problem at hand is a simple statement of fact, considering the evidence at hand.

Classic example of you twisting words to suit a meaning.

No, saying that you are full of shit is not ad hominem. I've provided proof of your lies, so it's a succinct way of summing up your position.

No, you didn't, as evidenced by the fact that what little you attempted to provide was easily rebuked.

Only in your mind, Kitt.

Well, for one, it would be proper grammar that way...

There was nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence.

Again, I thought this was pretty self explanatory - it shows how (Q) was, and still is, prone to abusive and random attacks against members and mods alike.

It doesn't show anything of the sort. It shows Q being rude to another member--who was herself infamously rude. You can't demonstrate randomness without proper context...which you failed to provide.

And what does any of that have to do with atheism??

I will repeat myself - you are failing in a logical capacity and are responding in an emotional and possibly intellectually dishonest one.

Um, right back at you? I mean, you're basically describing your own position here.

Right, considering your inability or unwillingness to provide substantiating evidence for both your original claim and this one, I accept your conceding of the point.

LOL! Talk about intellectual dishonesty...

Are you so desperate to try and strengthen your position that you want to try and deflect like this, or did you simply not read the articles in Randwolf's post? There are several examples, with citations, in those posts of people attacking religious people. For example:


I do believe that is pretty damned succinct...

The Militant Atheist League was the only example of atheists attacking theists, and this was already explained by Fraggle--Stalin hated everybody. He attacked everybody.

So far the only example of atheists actually doing anything that remotely resembles the ugliness that theists commit on a daily basis is a group that existed in Stalinist Russia. How relevant.

And the only example you have of a sciforums atheist attacking a theist for their--oh, wait, you've already backed off that claim. Nevermind. See, it's hard to keep track of your BS sometimes.

So you say that the attack had nothing to do with atheism... yet atheist groups are reaching out in order to distance themselves from this guy... okay then. It seems there are atheists out there worried they will be lumped with him, but perhaps you are right - perhaps this attack had nothing to do with religion or lack there of... or at least, I cannot definitively prove it, so I am willing to concede this point as a possibility, since short of us asking the guy while he is hooked up to a polygraph test we will never know for sure.

Woah! A semblance of integrity?! If only you'd apply this to the rest of your position, and you'd be golden. We could agree to disagree on some issues, and you could rightly concede the ones you're factually wrong about.

But, I know this is probably expecting too much.

Indeed, much as I would decry the people that bring lawsuits against companies/corporations for things that should be common sense, such as "coffee being hot" or "Cruise Control on Recreational Vehicles NOT being AutoPilot"; they seem less out for change and more out for blood, something I would label as psychotic.

Then you are ignorant of both what the FFRF is fighting for, and the meaning of "psychotic."

And no, since Aqueous ID brought some ACTUAL facts and evidence to the table AND presented them in a rational manner, I conceded that I could understand his point. I still do not agree with it and think that such a ruling is wrong, but by the letter of the law I can see where such a decision is being made.

I see. So, you're wrong, but you're not wrong.

indeed, there is more misrepresentation going on here... when do you intend to quit it and address the point at hand (that a frivolous lawsuit is not the most appropriate way to handle this perceived issue - perhaps they could have, I don't know, gone up to the school board/administration and pointed out where it was against regulation and seen if the administration intended to take action... as, you know, would make sense?) Tell me Balerion... do you sue a cashier at a store for theft if they accidentally short change you, or do you go back and point out the mistake in a respectful manner and ask to have it corrected? Do you sue McDonalds for services not rendered if they forget to put the toy in your happy meal, or do go back to the counter and point out the all to simple mistake and let them fix it?

And here comes the delusion. Even though you just agreed that you were wrong about this, you still call the lawsuit "frivolous." Let me correct you one more time: A violation of the Establishment Clause is not frivolous. Just because you think they should be able to pray does not make the lawsuit an inappropriate action. You should disabuse yourself of such solipsism.

Indeed it would be... you can be greedy for more than just monetary things... sociopolitical power comes to mind.

And why do you insist on casting them in this light? Oh, right, because you think people should be able to pray no matter where, or what circumstance, or whatever, because you don't understand the First Amendment. And because they disagree with you, rather than simply being of a different opinion, they're psychotic. Naturally.

]qipte\Right... and again YOU are misrepresenting here. Bells points in that thread were rather simply laid out. The true problem was the fact that he couldn't REFUTE any of her points, and thus tried to play the TL;DR card... which doens't fly here. Period.
Tell me Balerion... do you disregard a scientific study because it's "too long winded"? Did you ignore your teacher in history class because his lectures were "too long"? [/quote]

First of all, Bells wasn't writing a thesis. Secondly, it doesn't excuse a needless insult. Again, you seem to interpret the rules however you see fit; they don't apply to Bells in this case...because Sorcerer had it coming? Where in the rules does it say anything about that?

Not at all, as once again you have failed to ascertain what ad hominem actually means. I stand by what I said; if you are incapable of bringing rock-solid FACTS to a SCIENTIFIC FORUM and carrying on a discussion without resorting to intellectual dishonesty and spindoctoring... then this is NOT the forum for you, as that kind of tripe is specifically AGAINST the established rules. It is possible, however, that you are simply attempting to argue Ignoratio elenchi.

Grandstanding bullshit, which is becoming the norm for you.

I brought facts, you chose to ignore them out of some childish desire to appear correct. Just like you pretend that I'm not smart enough to realize you're full of crap when you act like saying you're full of crap is an ad hominem.

Don't be that guy, Kitt.

\Nope, but again, considering you are unable to substantiate your claim, I accept you conceding the point.

LOL! You've been reduced to taking faux-victory laps in lieu of actually supporting your points or rebutting mine.

How the mighty have fallen.

No, it isn't. Theist is to Religion as Athlete is to Sports... Protestant is a specific term for a specific group of people. Orthodox, Baptist, Sunni, Ahmadiyya, Anglican... THOSE are specific groups. Per Merriam Webster:

:facepalm:

All of those terms encompass smaller, more specific groups within, so there goes your "specificity" argument.

Not that you had one to begin with. The context of the claim required "theist" as a definer, because that's who I was talking about. If I got any more specific than that, the claim would have been incomplete.

I think I understand why it is you dislike Fraggle Rocker so much... as the moderator of the Linguistics forum, he would absolutely tear you apart for such mistakes as this...

I think you two should hang out for a while, because you clearly need his help.

If you had left it at "vitriolic fundie" then it wouldn't be an insult (or at least, not such an insult). However, once again, you are MISREPRESENTING THE TRUTH:

You are calling him a disgrace as well as a "bitter/malicious Christian fundamentalist"...

Listen, Captain ALL-CAPS, take a pill. Clearly you're letting your emotions get the best of you again. I didn't misrepresent anything, I'm just surprised that you would take what was clearly a play on the phrase "to grace this ____" as an insult. Anyway, if you knew Sandy...well, come to think of it, given your blatant hatred of atheists, I'm sure the two of you would have gotten along swimmingly.

There's a reason she is no longer a member here.

I know full well what "out of context" means...

No you don't. Well, now you do, because I just explained it to you. But your previous answer demonstrated complete ignorance of the term.

and in regards to those posts, that is in full context. If you dont' believe me, fine. Then tomorrow (as it is now 1am and, honestly, I have more important things to do than argue credibility with YOU) I will go and make a panoramic of the entire discussion; granted, I know you will simply claim I've "edited out the parts that don't support my argument" or some other such excuse, but hey - I've only got so much retail space on my little 21 inch monitor... I can't fit an entire 5 page thread on that at once, so you'll have to deal.

Why don't you just link to the thread? That would be the practical thing to do.

I point you, once more, the the fact that he fucking STALKED S.A.M. across the biology forum...

Says you. Given your on-again off-again relationship with the truth, you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

or perhaps the fact that he LASHED OUT at even other moderators because of them having differing beliefs.

That's a lie. He lashed out because he was mad. I'm not excusing his tirade(s), but let's put them in their proper context, please. Pretending that he's some mindless, theist-hating monster doesn't help anything.

Nope, that is not an ad hominem... my, you really don't know what ad hominem means, do you?

You attempt to invalidate my arguments by suggesting that I am too emotional. That is the definition of ad hominem.

Let's get this out of the way now, Kitt: You're not smarter than me. You'll only embarrass yourself by pretending to be.

1) No, you are not "rude to rude people"... you are rude. Full stop. You cuss people out when you don't get your own way, insult them even when trying to "make peace" (does the phrase "Truce Fuckface" remind you of anything? Or perhaps "Stop being a cunt"?) and generally go out of your way to make people feel unwelcome.

All false accusations. Of course, you've disabused me of the notion that your opinion is worth my consideration, so there's really no point in going on with this particular part of the discussion.

2) Yes, you are attacking me (or rather, attempting to attack my character... failing miserably at it, but the attempt is still there) by misrepresenting me (Straw Man comes to mind).

Again, I could say the same things about you. Except I can and have supported those claims with proof. All you've done is show that you don't really know what you're talking about.

3) It is quite obviously emotional, as you tend to be perfectly polite so long as people do what you want when you want it...

Another pointless, baseless attack. Go ahead, call me emotional while you yell at me in ALL CAPS. Apparently, you need the release.

Indeed, it IS a generalization... and one we would RATHER have people visiting this forum for the first time avoid making

Well no worries there. As long as they aren't digging around in Q's posting history from six years ago, there's quite apparently nothing that would give them that impression. As evidenced by the member outcry following Tiassa's absurd post, it's pretty clear that the only generalization new members will make is that mods here are dicks.

As far as Tiassa not "bothering to make that distinction"... I'm sorry, but by the third post in this thread (Aqueous ID's reply, and Tiassa's reply to that) I would have thought this distinction to be self evident.

He backtracked later, but as I pointed out to you, it's still a generalization. And one none of you have been able to support.

1) What thread did I lock "out of spite"?

This one, if I'm not mistaken. And the reason given was that you were going to take all of my posts and put them in their own thread. Because you were having a hissy fit and wanted to abuse your powers a lil'.

2) Who have I threatened to moderate out of "anger"... and better yet, upon what grounds do you pretend to know that I am/was angry? If anything, most of the time when I moderate people I simply feel pity and/or sadness at the fact that it has come to such action.

Me, for starters, but others as well. I'm sure you'll find more examples by digging through this thread. You're quite the temperamental little fella. Or do you post in ALL CAPS out of sadness?

3) Right, I have overstepped my bounds of the rules at times - I don't deny that, after all I'm not perfect. In my defense, it does become excessively difficult at times to dedicate the proper amount of time to the areas of the forum I am responsible for when I'm tied up defending myself from your libelous attacks though.

"Libelous attacks?" LOL.

The bottom line is that you're starting to act like the bully we just bounced out of here. Knock it off.

4) What is it that I've "made up"? I have provided numerous citations and references through this facade of a debate... what's your excuse for your intellectual dishonesty Balerion?

What citations? You can't even keep your story straight--you can't decide if you're trying to use Q as an example of an atheist attacking theists for their beliefs or just as a general bully--and nothing you've argued here has been correct. You've been wrong about everything. From what an ad hominem is, to the difference between libel and slander, to the concept of specificity, to what constitutes "context," or even what it means...you're just wrong, about everything.

There's no point in continuing this. You're not going to admit you're wrong, or that you're lying, or anything that might raise my opinion of you to what it was before you went off the deep end. Goodnight.

 

[quinnsong]

Consider this Balerion!:bugeye:


The truth is we cannot know for sure if one side (atheists) or the other side (theists) had their way what would happen. Would the amount of terrible events happening in the world increase, decrease or stay the same? Can anyone say for sure?

 

[Kittamaru]

*shrugs* Talking with Balerion when you disagree on a topic tends to be an exercise in chatting with Gary Busey; no matter what you say or how much evidence you provide, he tends to disregard it in favor of yelling at his pants (or other inanimate objects)

Its all good though. Intellectual dishonesty will, in time, reap its just rewards.

For now, I've said my peace and made my case; if anyone wishes to believe Balerion at this juncture, that is their choice. I am content with my evidence and my position, and am inclined at this point to simply sit back and watch the conversation continue.

 

[Trooper]

No, you can't. You can only arrive at a compromise which allows you to pretend you are what you are.

There is no justification for us. We just are.

Fascinating, yes. But not important.

I’m under no pretense. I know what I am. I am alive. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. I am, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. Not important, to whom, God?

It is you, who errors by assuming yourself present to lament your own non-existence. You will not taste death, Marquis. You must realize that your perception is very similar to the pious. You’re bitter because you’re still hoping for something outside of yourself, outside of life itself, beyond the observable universe to justify your existence. You wouldn't view it as futile if you weren't hoping for something more. It’s not a gift from god, nor a punishment, silly boy. Sisyphus loved life. God didn't condemn Sisyphus to futility. There is no God.

"Life is a characteristic distinguishing objects having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not."

Why do we have brains? They evolved to produce adaptable and complex movements.

"If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

Is life justifiable? It is. Is it reasonable to sustain life? It is. What else is there but inanimate matter? Do I push the rock because I have no choice? No, I push the rock because I can.
Does the rock choose to move? It does not.

Is life a gift? It is, from those who came before us.

There, there―all is well.

 

[Yazata]

You realize that Tiassa challenged the person, to use your term?

Tiassa doesn't seem to do very much else on Sciforums.

Look at the politics fora. God help you if you're an American Republican or a conservative generally. It's Tiassa starting thread after thread, all intentional caricatures, all basically saying 'fuck you!'

But Tiassa seems to be untouchable here on Sciforums. I've never seen any other moderator criticize Tiassa. That simply doesn't happen and it isn't going to happen in this thread either.

Sciforums' rules and even basic standards of civility only apply to the little people.

Indeed, with (Q) being one of them - the challenge was to stop lashing out and attacking the theists on the site, especially outside of the religion subforum.

Balerion's remark wasn't about (Q), it was about Tiassa. Let's agree that (Q) went way over the line and that you were right to give him a cooling-off period. I have no objection to that at all. You were right. Let's get that out of the way.

My objection, once again, is the trollish way that this thread began. And once again, for the n'th time, the person who started this thread was a moderator.

There are consequences when people like (Q) step over the line, as there should be. With Tiassa no lines and no consequences exist.

If Tiassa had actually written what you reinterpret him as saying, I would have joined in agreeing. I've said similar things in many other threads and I subsequently said them again in this thread too.

But that ISN'T what Tiassa wrote. You know it. Tiassa just trolled atheists in general, trying to generate an emotional response, trying to make all the dogs bark. ALL of them, even those atheists like myself who AGREE with your more mature and thoughtful version of what you wish that Tiassa had said.

 

[Kittamaru]

Trooper, the only thing I would want to ask, then, is why so many cultures around the world and through time developed some sense of a "higher power" with such similarities? Not saying that this is evidence there must be a God (that would be argumentum ad populum) but it is a big coincidence is it not?

 

[quinnsong]

I’m under no pretense. I know what I am. I am alive.

Is life justifiable? It is. Is it reasonable to sustain life? It is. What else is there but inanimate matter? Do I push the rock because I have no choice? No, I push the rock because I can.
Does the rock choose to move? It does not.

Is life a gift? It is, from those who came before us.

There, there―all is well.

As an agnostic I am content with this view and if the truth is something altogether different than what theists believe or atheists do not believe, then what?

 

[Trooper]

Trooper, the only thing I would want to ask, then, is why so many cultures around the world and through time developed some sense of a "higher power" with such similarities?

Similarities? Are you referring to anthropomorphism?

 

[Bells]

But that ISN'T what Tiassa wrote. You know it. Tiassa just trolled atheists in general, trying to generate an emotional response, trying to make all the dogs bark.

He didn't, if you want to know the truth.

It was a way to get atheists to look at our collective performance and behaviour in this sub-forum.

The reason being is that the extent of dialogue from several atheists posting in this sub-forum was tantamount to 'you're a stoopid head' each time they conversed with a theist. Some added some extra flavour text of abuse and insults which amounted to 'you're a fucking stoopid head'.. Or thereabouts.

As atheists, we are very quick to dish it out to theists. But the very moment a fellow atheists points out the behaviour of his belief free neighbours, we all feel insulted and abused. Why is that?

The irony is that instead of looking at ourselves and how we present and represent atheism on this site, many have lived up to the OP.

You know, we often get a lot of new posters and members who aren't sure. Who have valid questions about their own beliefs and how they just aren't sure anymore. Do you think such an individual would find comfort and reason in 'you're a stoopid head'? Or would they turn and run screaming?

We've gone beyond hating religion. Now we are hating the people who are religious. And we are at the point of 'you're either with us, convert to atheism or you're a fucking stoopid head'..

Tiassa didn't troll us. We atheists trolled ourselves. There is a vast difference.

We were and are so quick to become offended that we missed the bigger picture. Did he generalise? Yes. However the correct response to that generalisation would have been some self reflection and a quick look back over how we portray our atheism on this site and thought 'hmmm is he talking about me?'.. What we did instead, was self righteous indignation and quite literally, living up to be brain dead buffoons in many many instances.

Tiassa wasn't trolling all of us atheists. He was making a point. And instead of proving him wrong, many of us proved him right.