A Moderated Content Section?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
Bozo wrote:
Quote:I'm not challenging the atheist group consensus with theist principles, but with atheist principles.

Nope.
You try to get us to make the theist argument for you.
You feebly attempted to get our best arguments for the existence of an IPU, aka god.
When I called you on it early in that thread, you went into your weak condescending stance that a short reply was lazy, and not worthy of your attention.
Then you put me on ignore so you wouldn't have to respond to any more of my comments.
You're a coward, you know your arguments are dishonest and you hide from any real discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
26-12-2014, 06:52 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(26-12-2014 06:40 PM)pablo Wrote:  Bozo wrote:
Quote:I'm not challenging the atheist group consensus with theist principles, but with atheist principles.

Nope.
You try to get us to make the theist argument for you.
You feebly attempted to get our best arguments for the existence of an IPU, aka god.
When I called you on it early in that thread, you went into your weak condescending stance that a short reply was lazy, and not worthy of your attention.
Then you put me on ignore so you wouldn't have to respond to any more of my comments.
You're a coward, you know your arguments are dishonest and you hide from any real discussion.

QFT (and so he'll see if if she's ignoring you).

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
26-12-2014, 07:10 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(26-12-2014 05:55 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Kingschosen appears to not be effectively challenging the group consensus. He's not a threat, so there's no need to lynch him. And yea, he appears to be a nicer fellow too.

Also, if I understand, Kingschosen is a theist. So if he were to challenge the group consensus, it would be from the theist perspective. And you guys have memorized all the atheist dogma come backs to theist arguments, so you're comfortable with that debate, it's not a threat.

I'm not challenging the atheist group consensus with theist principles, but with atheist principles.

As example, I keep asking members to challenge the qualifications of their chosen authority (reason) in exactly the same way they challenge the theist's chosen authority (holy books).

You guys are all geared up to fight people trying to sell you holy books, but I'm not doing that. I'm trying to sell you your own principles.

This is a confusing line of attack for members, thus a threat, being held at bay with an endless barrage of quips, distractions, characterizations and other empty filler while they try to figure out how to meet the challenge.

Meeting the challenge is easy though. Be loyal to your own stated principles. Agree with yourself.

KC does challenge us, but he unlike most theist trolls who come here, yourself included, he actually made an effort to get to know us. He doesn't make endless threads on the same subject and I'm proud to call him a friend.

I've seen this many times, people like you come into our home and complain about decor, then you make a mess until we have to toss you out. KC comes into our house and doesn't leave a mess, if he does he's more than happy to clean it up.

Finally, there are no "atheist principles" for the last time atheism is simply the disbelief in god(s).


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
26-12-2014, 09:32 PM
Re: A Moderated Content Section?
Is there a FAQ of this supposed atheist dogma and principles? I seem to have never gotten it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2014, 10:18 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(26-12-2014 05:55 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Kingschosen appears to not be effectively challenging the group consensus. He's not a threat, so there's no need to lynch him. And yea, he appears to be a nicer fellow too.

Also, if I understand, Kingschosen is a theist. So if he were to challenge the group consensus, it would be from the theist perspective. And you guys have memorized all the atheist dogma come backs to theist arguments, so you're comfortable with that debate, it's not a threat.

I'm not challenging the atheist group consensus with theist principles, but with atheist principles.

As example, I keep asking members to challenge the qualifications of their chosen authority (reason) in exactly the same way they challenge the theist's chosen authority (holy books).

You guys are all geared up to fight people trying to sell you holy books, but I'm not doing that. I'm trying to sell you your own principles.

This is a confusing line of attack for members, thus a threat, being held at bay with an endless barrage of quips, distractions, characterizations and other empty filler while they try to figure out how to meet the challenge.

Meeting the challenge is easy though. Be loyal to your own stated principles. Agree with yourself.

KC has never been concerned with taking on a whole forum of atheists, and can swing the knowledge stick quite well....

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...3#pid59953

in the end, when you have two heavies of differing worldviews, who know the debate game, logic game and religiosity, it usually comes down to a stalemate as it is all subjective, and up to personal interpretation. It is impossible to prove/disprove god. I spend a lot of time debating online and offline, and can honestly say I have had ...only four very lengthy deep debates that ended with a "draw." A civil agreement to disagree, with a nod of respect to each other's knowledge and debating level.They were not here. All others were taken to the woodshed. I feel extremely confident challenging any theist, but I wouldnt challenge KC, only because I don't have the time to engage him at the level it would require. I suspect he and I would go for weeks, and in the end it would just be a stalemate...I can dismantle most theists with one eye shut as I have been doing this a long time, and have....a confident position of the facts, the parables, the pseudepigrapha, and the historicity of the abrahamic myths... i mean faiths. Laughat

Notice that KC is accepted here because he remains civil, doesn't proselytize with threats of damnation, and will engage anyone at the level he is engaged. He isn't our pet theist by any stretch of the imagination...he is respected, and has earned his bones so to speak....you...haven't.

We get a new crazy every week who thinks they have some unique, erudite perspective. Wolfbitn spent a week repeating "30,000 manuscripts for jesus, and only 4 for alexander, how come you don't disbelieve in alexander" BS weaksauce posit. He finally got kicked for spamming and not engaging. We (and I in no way speak for anyone but myself, and I am speaking in general terms of experience from my short time here) don't care for semantic word games, and we have members here that are extremely intelligent, educated and experts in biblical history, philosophy, logic, science, etc.....we just don't bother to enter discourse unless it is apparent the new poster isn't just another hubris ineducable tyro tool of a theist who is unable to articulate, substantiate or validate his/her faith. I myself have zero patience for word games, peek a boo philosophy...too tired, too busy. Good luck on your....endeavors.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
26-12-2014, 10:39 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(26-12-2014 05:55 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  Kingschosen appears to not be effectively challenging the group consensus. He's not a threat, so there's no need to lynch him. And yea, he appears to be a nicer fellow too.

Also, if I understand, Kingschosen is a theist. So if he were to challenge the group consensus, it would be from the theist perspective. And you guys have memorized all the atheist dogma come backs to theist arguments, so you're comfortable with that debate, it's not a threat.

I'm not challenging the atheist group consensus with theist principles, but with atheist principles.

As example, I keep asking members to challenge the qualifications of their chosen authority (reason) in exactly the same way they challenge the theist's chosen authority (holy books).

You guys are all geared up to fight people trying to sell you holy books, but I'm not doing that. I'm trying to sell you your own principles.

This is a confusing line of attack for members, thus a threat, being held at bay with an endless barrage of quips, distractions, characterizations and other empty filler while they try to figure out how to meet the challenge.

Meeting the challenge is easy though. Be loyal to your own stated principles. Agree with yourself.

Reason is in opposition to faith, not to holy books. I don't have faith in reason, I have evidence that reason works.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
26-12-2014, 10:47 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(26-12-2014 05:55 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  You guys are all geared up to fight people trying to sell you holy books, but I'm not doing that. I'm trying to sell you your own principles.

This is a confusing line of attack for members, thus a threat, being held at bay with an endless barrage of quips, distractions, characterizations and other empty filler while they try to figure out how to meet the challenge.

Meeting the challenge is easy though. Be loyal to your own stated principles. Agree with yourself.

And you know these how?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
Quote:KC does challenge us, but he unlike most theist trolls who come here, yourself included, he actually made an effort to get to know us.

Ok, you like KC, and not me. Fair enough, no complaints with that. Surely no one is obligated to like me, or read any of my posts.

Did you notice how you've completely ignored the reasoned analysis I offered on a possible difference between me and KC, and all you wish to talk about is your emotional reaction to me?

I didn't force you to do that, so I accept no blame. You could have chosen to respond with a reasoned analysis of your own, and then we could have dialoged on that level.

I'm not complaining, just explaining, you're making your own bed here. If you get tired of my emotional content, just ignore it, and respond to the reasoned content only. Be responsible for your own experience.

I'm trying to do the same, and the ignore list feature is helping out quite a bit. Maybe I belong on your ignore list? Problem solved once and for all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(25-12-2014 04:55 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  It would be great if there was one section of the forum where members couldn't clog the thread to death with short little clever quipy blurb posts that don't really add anything useful to the topic.

The problem is the same on every forum. You have intelligent interesting posters here, but their writing tends to get swamped by the less qualified, those whose only real interest is to get a quick lazy ego bump for the least possible effort.

It's a signal to noise ratio problem. Some good posts are there, but after awhile one starts to wonder whether it's worth digging through the junk pile to find them.

In fairness, this is a problem on pretty much all forums, not just this one.

I'm guessing this suggestion will be declined, and that's ok, no problem. But I thought I would cast my one little vote.

Funnily enough, I agree with you. I have long since abandoned any attempts to converse with theists (or anyone who doesn't follow the mainstream view) on here. The reason being that, like you said, I just get drowned out by people attacking the other person for their own reasons (either valid or invalid). Even if those reasons are understandable it still prevents me from having my discussion, which is a shame. I know that myself and quite a few others would love to have to opportunity to converse with theists without well-intentioned other members, and the not-so-well-intentioned crusaders, drowning us out.

I wouldn't hold your breath on it happening any time soon though.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2014, 07:04 PM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2014 07:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: A Moderated Content Section?
(27-12-2014 06:32 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I know that myself and quite a few others would love to have to opportunity to converse with theists without well-intentioned other members, and the not-so-well-intentioned crusaders, drowning us out.

Easy. Say something interesting or take it to the teenage table.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: