Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
No one is stalking no one.
The mods don't seem to agree with you.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the situation.
You seem to think you're up on it already. The best defense against knowledge is to think you already know.
Do those "flaws" involve what the person does for a living? Or ignoring what the person says and simply reposting your contention as spam?
No,...
That's all you needed to say. The rest is just your anti-theist bias masquerading as logic.
I will not tolerate harassment and bullying.
Oh wow, thanks, this is a massive case of bullying we have on our hands isn't it?
It isn't on your hands. You just stay on topic like a good boy and you'll be fine. The people equipped to handle it are on the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Perhaps this is Hari resurrected from the dead.
I suspect it's willows.
EVERYone knows yours is FAKE FAKE FAKE.
Lol. Dee dee manages to "not see" that point.
So does the bible cause people to fear homosexuals? I'm assuming "homophobia" is fear of homosexuals. I can only judge from my life as a christian, and the lives of Christians I know, that the bible causes no fear in the christian of homosexuals. The only fear the bible instills into a christian is a healthy fear of the Lord.
And taking the homophobic actions of "christians" going expressly against what the bible teaches, as evidence that the bible causes homophobia, strikes me as profoundly illogical.
What say you?
Created:
Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.
This is an incorrect statement in that God will NOT do "whatever". The statement implies,
Anything God does is good and just according to his own standard.
This statement is untrue, and not the position of the bible. The bible's position is, because all of God's actions are morally good, there are some actions God cannot do, ie, morally bad actions, like lie.
Citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
No one is stalking no one.
The mods don't seem to agree with you.
Stephen is simply pointing out flaws in someone's argument, which is the whole point of this website.
Do those "flaws" involve what the person does for a living? Or ignoring what the person says and simply reposting your contention as spam?
Your agreement with a persons position doesn't make that position correct. No poster's career, gender, age, race, or geographic location has no bearing on the correctness of their argument. That is what should be addressed, the content of their argument.
I will not tolerate harassment and bullying. And I will not excuse those who will pretend its OK because the bully agrees with their argument. Address the argument, not the person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I didn't ask anyone to die for my crimes or sins or misdemeanours.
Heroes aren't asked. They selflessly volunteer.
....someone did take it upon themselves and committed suicide on my behalf and I didn’t have a say in the matter.
If you had had a say, you couldn't have then called it "suicide" could you? The other person has free will too, and did not need your "say" to make his own choices.
And the idea that I would ask or want anyone to suffer for my crimes or sins is abhorrent and it appals me.
The idea that you would ask is wholly your idea. If it is abhorrent and appalling, why are you entertaining it? That idea isn't in the bible.
Neither my brother nor Jesus is my keeper. And I will suffer and `bare my own cross, ' as it is I that am responsible for my own actions.
OK. Then what exactly is your problem? Has anyone tried to stop you from being responsible for your own actions? The bible agrees that you are responsible for your own actions.
I find also applauding that someone had taken it upon themselves to actually “sacrifice” themselves without my knowledge or consent! On my behalf.
So you're miffed that Jesus didn't inform you first and then ask your permission?
I have directly asked people on this forum (one being a man of the cloth), wouldn’t they too be appalled and find it abhorrent if someone just took it upon themselves to take responsibility for their own sins, crimes and mistakes and sacrificed themselves via an horrific death? I have had no follow up response as of yet.
Or you ignore their "follow ups" and repost your question as if there was no answer. That behavior is usually referred to as spamming.
...there were only four humans on the planet at the time...
Who told you that?
So your entire post can be boiled down to, "I find this idea appalling" (Never mind that the idea is yours to begin with) My response is, "OK, you find it appalling, so what?" I mean, what response do you expect to a thread where you tell us you don't like something?
I'm trying to understand your intention here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Lmao stop being that one person who joins the conversation with nothing to add.
If you think obsessive walls of texts about another poster is "having something to add" then I think I'll just stay being that one person thanks.
I don't like bullies, and I don't like stalkers. Off or on line. I confront them on it. And I disregard the people who ignore the harassment but want to blame the Confronter for the derailed thread. Sue me.
You can enable his obsession, or you can make a post on the topic. Your choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Suspicious of what exactly?
That his clique has colluded to keep him winning by sympathetic votes?
That the mods have consistently thrown out votes against him?
That he has loose, under the table agreements of "vote for me and I'll vote for you" with other members?
That the debate system here is systematically rigged?
That the debate system here is fundamentally unfair?
Does your suspicion fall mostly on the winning debater, the voters, the mods, or the system?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you are speaking about what only YOU believe someone else believes. Sorry, that is not evidence . So you have no evidence.
The evidence is the persons post. That is all the evidence any of us have of what each other believes. Do you have any evidence other than that?
So show me a direct quote or simply Now leave me alone.
If you want me to leave you alone, stop replying my posts.
This is stalking and intimidation for the sake of it
Are you intimidated?
I have no interest in what YOU believe about what Tradedsecret believes about the Burden of Proof.
Yet you prattle on about TS in every post you make! Does that not strike you as odd?
Tradesecrete has made it more that clear what s/he thinks of the B of P but you are just to dumb and lazy to have read all of this tread.
There you go again.
Posting the same thing in its entirety is Spamming
Yes you really aught to consider the amount of times I have to repeat myself ESPECIALLY after I made it crystal clear to YOU at post #53 Stephen : THAT" This is the last I am going to say on the matter as I won't be party to YOU hijacking and derailing someone else's thread by causing an irreverent, uncalled for and un-necessary argument" .
And then you went right on ahead and blabbered on the matter again!
...and you fall for it every time don't you?
Would that be your spamming or your stalking?
Is it any wonder that your friend appears to have had the good sense to have distanced him/herself from you.
Lol. TS is not "distancing" himself from me genius. He's avoiding his obsessed stalker.
So you chase as much as you like sunshine my answer will always be the same.
In other words, spam. OK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
His pal Jesus should have warned him
Indeed. This was shocking and he being a man of clothe too that teaches and preaches in universities.
I didn't know dee dee preached in a university. Why would a university need preaching?
The rest of your post was again an obsessive rant on TS. You said you would stop that, and I told you I would remind you of your promise to stop.
It leaves one to wonder what his hidden talents are, does it you?
No, it doesn't. I'm not obsessed with TS. If the only thing you can do is ramble about your obsession, there will be no point talking to you, and I will simply talk at you. Really, get a hold of yourself, you're starting to look like a nutjob.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, repeating your post in its entirety is spam.
And that spam does nothing to address the rebuts I posted.
YOU can start by producing the actual evidence that he actually states...
I posted what TS said. What else would convince you? An audio recording?
Is the statement true? If it is, then you are wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You knew what I was alluding to though.
Yeah I did, but that didn't seem to have stopped the mods from the ridiculously silly allegation of sexual harassment in my case. But as I admitted, you're safe.
So you're not so conservative yourself.
I don't know what conservatism has to do with it, but I know better than try to convince you that your perception is not necessarily fact. And I know you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I agree, the brother didn't help the thread, but he appears to have fell victim of Ethang5's usual tactic...
His pal Jesus should have warned him. They are supposed to be so tight, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .
Do I?
Yes, you do. You seem obsessed and angry at his credentials.
It may well be because of something he may have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree with.
Then take it up with him. Stop obsessing about him to everyone you post to.
Or it could be that I may value the importance of his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.
It has nothing to do with me. Get a grip of yourself.
Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere where it wasn't even asked for.
How does one "interfere" on a public board? Do you want TS all to yourself?
I will skip the rant you went into about TS. I'm not interested. I'm not obsessed with him. I'm here to debate religion. What TS needs or doesn't need is of no interest to me, and I cannot fathom why you're telling me. Address what I say to you, and address to TS what He says to you. That is how sane people operate.
This is the last I am going to say on the matter..
That would be great, as this obsession of yours was already old 2 months ago.
I hope you won't mind if I remind you if you ever start obsessing on him again. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.
You just cannot help persistently embarrassing your friend, can you?
No one is as perpetually embarrassed as you seem to believe Stephen. When you feel embarrassed, it is likely that you're the only one feeling so.
Show me where s/he has been correct on the matter of where the Burden Of Proof lays.
TS believes tha,t "Each person making a positive claim holds the responsibility of defending that claim." This is true and logical. Of course, that makes it less likely that you will agree with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Nope. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
As your argument on BoP was.
Why don't obsess, we're just having a chuckle at a confused lad of whom's PoV has been cleanly dissected.
Ok, but Stephen's chuckle sounds a lot like a whine. I've know TS a while, and I've read your posts, TS could run logic rings around you in his sleep. But if feeding yourself fairies tales makes you happy, more power to you.
Do you play chess?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
TS has been correct and consistent on the matter of the BoP.
Each person making a positive claim holds the responsibility of defending that claim. You just want to be the one that selects which claim is to be discussed, and TS won't stand for that bit of trickery.
But please read my post to Stephen. I'm also not interested in discussing TS with you. Discussing the topic is fine, but your personal opinion of him doesn't interest me.
Stephen seems greatly interested in TS. Perhaps you and he can start a TS thread where you 2 can obsess about him without "interference". Does that appeal to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
ethang5, that is vying to be the #1 Bible Fool upon this forum at Tradesecrets expense,
The most banned was already taken.
...YOUR LAST BAN OF 3 MONTHS
Didn't you say it was 6 months? You brought out the calculator didn't you?
YOUR CONTINUOUS BIBLICAL IDIOCY IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP: "FYI, Jesus is not a site member, rather he is a public figure thus not protected by the CoC.
Has Jesus become a member yet? I ask because the mods don't seem to think you and He are a pair on the site."
I was quoting a mod dee dee. I think s mod would know if your bestie Jesus was a member here.
Thank you for pointing this embarrassing FACT out to the membership!
You're welcome dee dee, but I'm sorry it embarrassed you. It's up on the site moderation thread already anyway, so I didn't think it would embarrass you anymore.
Besides, when I am present in behalf of Jesus the Christ, He is always with me and we act together,...
OK dee dee. I have learned not to contradict internet "I am god" geniuses. If a guy thinks he's god, showing him his feet won't help.
NEXT EQUALLY BIBLE IGNORANT FOOL LIKE ETHANG5 WILL BE ...?
Probably another all cap, all bold template of gibberish. You're stuck in your schtick, sooo...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm confused...Did they use strap ons and palm oil?
Be careful the mods don't accuse you of sexual harassment!
Oh wait, sorry... You're an atheist and a liberal. Never mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Ethang,
I think his obsession is clear. I don't know why. The Brother's comes pretty close too.
I reckon they both sleep and dream about me each night. I should feel flattered but honestly, it is a little bit creepy.
No one on the net is screened for mental instability before being allowed on. It can be creepy. Stay safe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, . ...................you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret .
Do I?
Yeah. You do. You actually seem angry that he's a lawyer and you're not. You harp on his qualifications as if they are the cause of your obsession. TS is not saying he is better than you because he's a lawyer, please don't take it that way.
It may well be because of something he may have claimed on a thread such as s/he has done on this thread for instance, that I may disagree or agree with.
Then why post it to me? You're posting it everywhere as if you're obsessed and deranged.
Or it could be that I may value the importance of his/her input , I mean, with all of those qualifications under his/her belt, who wouldn't want to a qualified and professional opinion.
Un-huh. Still, why post it to me? You're posting it everywhere as if you're obsessed and deranged. You're doing it right now. Could it be that you aren't aware of your obsession?
Or it could well be that someone such has your self has taken it upon themselves to interfere where it wasn't even asked for.
Interfere how? I never bring up Trade secret. You do.
But let me point out this fact for you. The Reverend Tradesecret, for 99.9 % of the time comes onto my threads uninvited , is that stalking or an obsession?
I don't care. I'm not Tradesecret. Our subject isn't Tradesecret. Why are you babbling to me about him? No one "invites" anyone to a thread. It's a free board, people post wherever they like. Reply to what I've said when you're talking to me, and reply to what TS has said when you're talking to him. That is how sane people do it.
So lets look at just my...
Dude. I don't want to discuss TS with you. I'm not obsessed with him. If you aren't careful, you will become as obsessed as Harikrish was with me.
i'll stop there as I think you should get the picture?
The only picture I get is that for some reason, you're obsessed with TS.
But I don't consider this the Reverend Tradesecret has having an obsession with me, would you?
TS joins many threads, and he isn't blabbering about you in his posts to others. We talk all the time and he never mentions you, but you always seem to mention him. So yes, I would think it's you having the creepy obsession with him.
If at all there is an obsessions to be noticed, I think that you have an obsession with her/him - Tradesecrete.
How does that bother you? I never mention TS to you. The only reason your obsession concerns me is that you keep obsessing about him in your posts to me! Why? I want to debate religion, not your petty obsessions.
Again you have appeared speaking on his/her behalf as if defending her/him.
I would not speak about TS if you didn't keep mentioning him in your every post.
So you see, s/he doesn't need you or anyone...
And off you go into another obsessed tirade about TS! Why are you telling me about what He does or doesn't need? How does what TS need concern you? Read my lips. I dont care. You obviously care. So tell it to TS himself, or tell it to some one who cares.
If you were to ever once attempt to interfere on my behalf I would feel quite embarrassed...
So would I. Though I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by "interfere".
....and ask you to stop.
Seems to me that you can stop worrying about that then.
This is the last I am going to say on the matter....
Wow, really? That would be great! It was way past getting old of you obsessing on TS in your every post. Thanks!
...the author shouldn't stand for your derailing antics either.
Lol! In a thread about Dreamtime, you've listed TS' posts, quoted him over and over, griped that other people commenting in your threads with him is "interference" and "butting in" and you think I'm the one derailing this thread?
But you've said you won't mention TS again. Good. But if you start to obsess again, I hope you won't mind if I remind you of this exchange where you promised that you'd stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You seem to mention and/or quote Tradesecret in all your posts, even in your posts to others who don't know him. Why are you obsessed with him?
I only ask because you've done it to me a couple of times now. In the middle of a thread about some random subject, you'll start babbling about Tradesecret and quoting things he said to you not related to me or our topic. What gives?
Be careful because from the outside, it looks like you are trying to harass him, and you already have bans under your belt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Jesus and I need you within this forum, in other words, we need you upon that wall, this is because we can show others in what a true Bible ignorant pseudo-christian looks like,...
OK, but are you sure the mods know about this "need" that you and Jesus have?
Date: 11/31/2019
Moderator: Joint-modertor decision
BrotherDThomas has been given a 1-day temp ban for repeated violations of the code of conduct, including personal attacks, cross-thread contamination, and excessive trolling despite moderator warnings.
Date: 02/04/2020
Moderator: Joint-moderator decision
BrotherDThomas has been banned for 1 week for a continuous pattern of behavior that includes cross-thread contamination, harassment, and ignoring moderation warning despite his most recent 1 day ban.
Date: 03/05/2020
Moderator: Joint decision
BrotherDThomas has been banned for one month, for the same reasons as cited in his previous bans.
Since being notified of this decision, he has started a goodbye thread. If engaging within it, please be respectful.
Date: 5/16/2020
Moderator: Joint decision
BrotherDThomas will receive a 7-day ban, principally for publishing an insulting list of members. A key factor there is the missing consent that would be implied in normal discourse with them. This is not to be confused with a ban on alternative points of view or general abrasiveness.
Date: 06/16/2020
Moderator: Joint Decision
BrotherDThomas has been banned for 14-days days for spam. It is understood that this was done at the behest of another user, who is likewise punished equally.
FYI, Jesus is not a site member, rather he is a public figure thus not protected by the CoC.
Has Jesus become a member yet? I ask because the mods don't seem to think you and He are a pair on the site.
I DO NOT want you to get embarrassingly BANNED again...
Thanks Dee dee, that is so kind of you. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I said nothing about rape.
But your best new buddy has;...
So what? I'm talking to you about what you did. Face up to it. Talk to him in your post to him.
And YOU with your words have suggested that this board is not a safe environment for women haven't you?
Because of people like you who use the word woman as an insult. Why do you do that? Why do you think a person being female is a fault? Why do you think that will be an insult?
STOP!!! with your nonsense!!!!!
I didn't write those words. I haven't a clue why you are addressing someone else in your post to me. Deflection I guess.
Look is all s/he had to do was admit at the beginning that s/he made a thoughtless throwaway comment on the hoof and that would have been the end of it.
Why would TS lie to sooth you? Your reading comprehension is your personal issue. TS's comment was neither wrong or insulting of women. Yours was. In truth, the fact that you think TS's "If/Then logic was derogatory to women only shows two things, you poor reading comprehension and your general disdain for women.
All I wanted to know was why you view being female as an insult. But since you're running away by quoting others and pretending its the comments of others in question here, I will take it that you don't wish to address your misogyny. Until the mods do something, I will call you on it, because I think misogyny is as bad as racism, bigotry, antisemitism, or any other form of hate speech.
Just so you know, being female is not an inferior state. There is absolutely nothing wrong or less about being female. And insulting females doesn't make you bigger, stronger, smarter, or cooler. It only diminishes you, if there remains any space below you anymore that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
yeah but you dont have to be Christian to want to be a singer.
Really? Because Deb can't figure out why anyone would want to sing or how anyone decides which song group to join. Deb thinks it's all highly mysterious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Lol.
It just seemed you had a problem with books, and I wondered if you always had that problem or if you developed it only after you used books in school. Then I realized I was assuming you had been to school.
Perhaps you spent your early life in a singing group without songbooks. That would explain a lot.
Instamute
I consider it a badge of honor that I got you to break character.
Good game.
Good game.
Created:
If I recall correctly, Demon was insulted on post #2. If he was "highly critical and offensive" it must have been in his first post, or the mod had dragged baggage he found offensive from some other thread. Attacking someone in one thread for some perceived slight in a different thread is not proper site behavior, and quite unprofessional in a mod.
Me, I don't really care about insults or punishments, as long as the mods behavior is fair and equitable. Had a more mature mod simply said to Demon, "Sorry, you're right, he shouldn't have said that, but sometimes you come off as highly critical and offensive and it makes others become defensive." Demon would have settled down.
But because the mod and his qlique knew that not only would they suffer no penalty, but that their thuggish behavior would be justified, they felt impunity, and changed a small matter into an incident. Do you know how many times this scenario has been repeated on this site?
It is the same impunity that makes their BLM compatriots feel they can physically assault anyone they deem has displayed highly critical and offensive behavior. We've seen the videos. It's just the online version of the same mob rule mindset.
It will kill this site. And since mods cannot be sanctioned or removed for ANY reason, they have no reason or incentive to be fair and impartial. Over and over, I've seen mods become jaded and arrogant. Vert/whoever he is now used to be a great guy. Ragnar was once not a tool. A few were strong enough to quit when they saw the change in themselves. But the younger ones are on the trajectory to blighted cynics. It's easy to see, pull up one of their threads from 2 years ago and it will become apparent.
After this site peters out, the owner will simply make another site and repeat the process because the paramount purpose of this site is NOT to provide a platform for debate. It's something else. That is why my advice to Demon was, If you want to stay in the pool, stop complaining about being wet. Otherwise, get out, dry off and go do something else.
The mods will not change. Hell, they won't even comprehend this post. So their clique won't change either. Just enjoy the interactions the board offers with the people you value, and be ready to walk away when the petty cronyism gets too much. There are other sites, and there will me more of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think you will find that it is your best buddy talking "rape of women"...
I said nothing about rape. Talking about rape is fine, using the word "woman" as an insult is misogynistic. It is the same as a racist using the word "black" as a pejorative, or a bigot using the word "homosexual" to demean someone.
TS said, "IF words can cause homophobia, then a woman wearing provocative clothing causes men to rape. This is what your argument proves and you know I am right".
Your poor reading comprehension makes you miss his valid point.
But I would really like to Know. What makes people like you think calling someone a Jew, a woman, a black,or a homosexual will insult them? Where is the pejorative in those words?
Do you speak that way to women in real life? Harikrish did, and I remember he was your good buddy. What's so negative to you about being female that you would use it as a way to insult someone??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Lol.
He is totally convinced you said that little green men are the creators of the universe and everything in it! Convinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What did you use in school? Was it books?
???
Err, you did go to school right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You're new. You will eventually.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
My bad, I didn't read all the way through. Didn't realize this was satire
It's not satire. Ever heard of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Out of a huge collection of poor points, that isn't saying much.
Created:
Posted in:
Though which one becomes the most popular club depends primarily on who breeds the quickest.
Islamic societies have ALWAYS had a higher birth rate than Christian societies. Yet Christianity is almost double their number.
Sometimes I wonder if you are able to distinguish between facts and what your bias makes you feel. You certainly talk as if the distinction is lost on you.
Created:
Posted in:
If one can accept this, how about an actual creator of our universe
You are conflating two things. Tell us why do these visiting beings also have to be the creators of anything.
interacting within our environment from somewhere similar to a parallel..............
They could interact without also being creators of the universe and everything in it..
Bet your opinion of the importance of reading comprehension has risen, hasn't it Gentle Reader? Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Since leaving god....
Are you sure that's really who you left? I mean, could he sing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Prof Richard Lynn said a survey of fellows of the Royal Society - Britain's science academy - found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God.
Masta Bill Lyinn said a survey of fellows of the Raysist Society - Alabama's 1849 science academy - found that only 3.3 per cent believed in interracial sex.
Yet virtual every African American today is lighter than his African brother. It probably takes more cahonés to say you believe in God in today's Royal Society than it did to say you were into black chicks in 1840's Alabama.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you think most straight men are hiding homosexual desires? What percentage would you say?
Created:
Posted in:
1. You disagree that theism is a kind of superstition.
Theism can be superstition. But saying all theism is superstition only shows how bias has corrupted your thinking.
I don't doubt that you do. Nevertheless, it is.
It's a wonder your debate wins aren't 100%.
2. You don't like the definition of "atheist" because you think it applies to non-humans.
Nope. YOU made it apply universally. Let me remind you of your argument.
Post #83 - The name "a-theist" literally means "not a theist." Atheism is the logical negation of theism. if you aren't a theist, then you are an atheist. Awareness or knowledge is not required by any definition I am aware of. (Bolding mine)
ethang it's very simple:"Do babies believe in god?"Unless the answer is "yes" they are atheists.
Where have I misstated your position?
The implicit scope of any "-ism" is humanity. It is only within this implicit scope that I have been speaking. Anything non-human is out of scope.
This seems ad-hoc and just so for your argument. If awareness or knowledge is not required by any definition you are aware of, what limits the scope to humans?
To restate my primary objection:
1. The definition of atheism requires only a lack of belief in a god or gods. (Don't forget the implicit scope of humans).
Then we disagree. The definition you use is incoherent. But everyone is free to use whatever definition they like. If the ONLY thing atheism entailed was a lack of belief in God or gods, atheists would not be so predictable.
It was fun Draft. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You quoted my exchange with draft, my name was even in the exchange, and then completely ignored my rebut!
Is the leaning tower of Pisa atheist? By your logic, it is!
No wonder you ignored it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I am sure you had no fear of that in the first place.
None whatsoever.
Good to keep him on his toes though!
And off his knuckles. Lol!
Is it me, or does it seem like Stephen sees being a woman as negative or inferior? Why do some people think "woman" is an insult?
Mod team, if the board is ever going to be a safe and enjoyable place for females, we should discourage this sort of behavior. It's already hard enough to get female members without cave men using the word "woman" as an invective.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
You can circumvent moderator punishment through mob action.
You can circumvent moderator action*¹ through other means too.
*¹The liberal progressive management of this website don't like*² the word "punishment".
*²They will punish, they just won't call it punishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I think straight? I have no idea.
Weren't you the one who said 60% of "straight" men are hiding homosexual desires?
This is satire. Of course it is.
Yeah. Let's call it that.
Seriously, no one has approached you already?
I retract the question. You've been friendly and polite so I don't want to jam you up.
Be careful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wait are you asking people if they want to become mods?
Nope. I have no power here, just a regular member.
But depending on your age, you might be invited soon. Shucks, you might already be being evaluated. Let me check your profile.
You are...
Male ......check
Progressive .......check
Gay .......check
Atheist .....check
Below 18 ......check
Dude, you can be a mod here anytime you want. Seriously, no one has approached you already?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also I've been pretty verbose about being gay, so... I don't know how you missed that.
I didn't miss it. I just got it from your stereotypically gay belief that most men (60%) are hiding homosexual .
...all of your points weren't real ones and lacked any sources to back you up
I made no points of my own. I asked questions and reacted to the answers. I will challenge whatever I think is illogical, even from someone who agrees with my personal opinion.
You didn't answer my questions. OK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I have seen no proof of this. The human brain is curious and seeks out explanations for why reality is the way it is. This tendency often leads to false ideas about reality. This is true even for science.
That's what I mean by "wired toward superstitious thinking." You just articulated exactly what I am talking about.
But then you go and substitute "theism" for "superstitious thinking." That is where you err.
I don't equate them as much as I recognize theism as a specific kind of superstitious thinking in the same way that a triangle is a specific kind of polygon.
False analogy. All triangles are polygons, but not all theism is superstitious thinking, unless you jump to that conclusion because of atheist bias.
There is no "neither." You are one or the other.
You BECOME one or the other. Address my point. Atheism is coherent only in systems with theism. A baby doesn't qualify.
Awareness or knowledge is not required by any definition I am aware of.
Then by this definition, a wilderbeest is an atheist. I reject this definition as so broad as to be useless and incoherent.
The name "a-theist" literally means "not a theist."
This definition renders the universe into only 2 groups, theists and everything else in it! That may serve your argument but lacks coherancy. Mt. Fiji is not an atheist.
Atheism is the logical negation of theism.
Babies are not logical, and certainly have not negated anything.
Even science developed out of the myths and superstitions of ancient humans! Both science and theism have had to separate and distinguish themselves from the old myths and superstitions of ancient humans. But all inquiry "lends itself" to superstitious" thinking.
I'm glad we're in agreement.
Only before you self-servingly, and incorrectly substituted "theism" for "superstitious thinking".
It is just easy for your argument to label all theism as "superstitious thinking", but unfortunately for you, that categorization is also wrong.
I understand why it is important for you to deny it, but that does not make it wrong.
I'm not denying it, I'm calling it illogical. You have offered no logical reason for the substitution. Your polygon analogy assumes your conclusion (that theism is a subset of superstitious thinking) and is thus illogical. You think theism is a subset of superstitious thinking because you are an atheist. You have offered no logical explanation for it.
I agree with everything you've said. You are the one carving out some magical protection for theistic thoughts here. My stance is perfectly consistent.
Your stance is consistent UNTIL you inexplicably substitute in theism for superstitious thinking. Your atheism is blinding you to the logical error you're committing. Your argument is logical for superstitious thinking, it is not logical for all of theism.
I never said superstition is the exclusive domain of theism. There are plenty of non-theistic superstitions.
I call trick play. In your 1st sentence, superstition is the subject, theism the object. Your 2nd sentences switches and makes theism the subject and superstition the object. Here is the comment without the trick play.
I never said superstition is the exclusive domain of theism. There are plenty of superstitions that are non-theistic
The switch changes the meaning.
Trick comment...
I never said superstition is the exclusive domain of theism.
Superstition ≠ theism
There are plenty of non-theistic superstitions.
Atheism ≠ superstition
Honest comment....
I never said superstition is the exclusive domain of theism.
Superstition ≠ theism
There are plenty of superstitions that are non-theistic
Superstition ≠ theism
You are saying that all theism is superstition. You have offered no reason for this claim, so I have assumed it is a function of your atheist bias and not derived from logic. Now, I understand why it is important for you to assert this, but that does not make it correct.
It's pretty conclusive that superstition is innate in us.
What is clear is that the tendency to want to explain the unknown is innate in us, which can lead to superstition. Just as the tendency to language is innate in us, which can lead to English. Calling English innate is just as illogical as calling superstition innate.
Unless the answer is "yes" they are atheists.
I've addressed this. Ignoring it will not make it less correct.
Does the leaning tower of Pisa believe in God?
Unless the answer is "yes" it is atheist.
Any argument that renders the leaning tower of Pisa an atheist is indistinguishable from nonsense. This is the kind of incoherency that happens when people are terrified of any argument that they think might lead to God.
Babies being neither atheist nor theist at birth is not a theistic argument, and is not intended to be one. It's just simple logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so.
Shows that WHAT is not so?
Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations.
Why then can not the male regressive child molester who is attracted to other male adults and molests boys when under stress be considered homosexual?
Also, about 60 percent of pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities,
This claim is obviously and intuitively untrue to everyone but homosexual activists.
...and there is an additional group of adult males who avoid overt contact but who are quite aware of their potentialities for reacting to other males.
Was this gem gotten by a survey? I'd love to see it. And what does "reacting" to other males mean? A few years ago a guy smiled and flashed his junk to me. I had him arrested. Does that count as a "reaction"?
Are you gay? You don't have to answer of course. I think all the current strife over homosexuality is due to society reacting to the left's attempt to normalize it.
Created:
Posted in:
...the notion that pedophiles are mostly straight is probably true.
So, if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I would like to see anyone list even one that will actually benefit you.
But I think liberals have a different concept of what "benefits" you. For example, flooding your neighborhood with primitive Somali illiterates "benefits "you because multiculturalism is good.
Created:
-->
@MgtowDemon
This allegation is meritless.
Not to worry Demon, those same actions will have "merit" when you do them against one of their clique.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Masterclass on ass-acting by a professional.
Created: