Now before you all start going all keyboard crazy on me please note that in real life, you probably wouldn't behave the same way. I've only been on here for a while and a lot of you seem like the most hostile, and nasty people on the planet (sorry to those that aren't) you can't have a civil debate without dropping the f-bomb or using a silly sarcastic remark. You guys repel people like magnets facing each other with a B-field of infinite Tesla. My experience on here has just been terrible honestly, I come on here to have a civil discussion, and these "keyboard warriors" just can't stop.
I'll tell you why you people from inside are just hollow shells of existence, childish in nature and just low human beings.
Now don't remark me with your silly comments i.e. "boohoo little cry baby go suck your mommy" trust me, say all your heart's desire but you are literally depressed from inside. Probably live in your mom's basement and think you can go on a ramble, It's a case of I don't how to have a civil discussion with you guys, your so immature nasty putrid filth vile scum. No respect for society, it's values and the different religions. Maybe, just maybe if you weren't so pathetic I could actually debate with y'all. I know some of you on here are completely civil in your discussions and I respect you as human beings, but until all of you can learn how to respect others, then what's the point of being here.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Now that you have chided the behaviors you don’t care for, after coming here voluntarily, will you be leaving?
@S.O.A....(?) Re: OP
Re: "A huge proportion of people on this site are nasty."
I have to agree with you 100% on that one. Okay, well, maybe not the "huge portion" part, but there ARE some members here who are simply horribly foul. Take Cog, for instance. I can't remember the last time that flea-bitten mangey varmint bathed... if EVER. Let's be honest here... He absolutely REEKS. Hell, his stench arrives in a room ten minutes before he does. So, yeah, there are some nasty folks on here. As for myself, I am proud to say I bathe once a week whether I need it or not... *smiling with pride*...
Re: "...please note that in real life, you probably wouldn't behave the same way."
Uh, actually, yes I would.
Re: "...and a lot of you seem like the most hostile, and nasty people on the planet..."
Not quite there yet, but I'm working on it. The competition out there is stiff with all the different religious sects.
Re: "...you can't have a civil debate without dropping the f-bomb or using a silly sarcastic remark."
Son of a-... *addressing forum*... Okay, listen up, you bunch of deviant assholes! Stop fucking dropping the fucking F-bombs around here! It's fucking inconsiderate, and it offends the touchy-feely sensibilities of other fucking members! Yes, I'm looking at YOU TWO, Cog and Old Man!
Re: "...but until all of you can learn how to respect others, then what's the point of being here."
Says the troll who keeps returning...
@Tin: You piece of metal shit, how in the fuck did you write a post insulting old man and myself and leave out David, Algebe, The big C, (I hate spelling that fucktards name out), Captain Jack, Sheldon, et. al. I hope your toe rust spreads to the rest of your body and things begin falling off. That's all I gotta say!
It's hard to take your accusations of nastiness seriously from someone who has at least 3 sock-puppet accounts. Has posted all kind of nastiness here (enough to get banned at least once). And presumably been dishonest about your religious affiliations (you've claimed to be a Hindu, an atheist, and a Muslim).
/e But somehow we are the nasty ones.
You may get snarky replies from others, but I, through my tears, can only drop to my knees begging for forgiveness for the hostile responses to your brilliant takes on life and truth. We just get lost in our arrogance and can't see the brilliance with which you lay out the logical, reasoned approach to the unquestioned truth of the Muslim religion. No one should ever question that religion, and I for one wholeheartedly agree that anyone who does should be shown the divine mercy of the followers of the Prophet (PBUH).
Since Servantofallah can see “no point of being here,” he’s been escorted from the building.
@Cyber Re: "Since Servantofallah can see “no point of being here,” he’s been escorted from the building."
Awwww... And I was just about to ask his forgiveness... *snapping fingers*... Dang-it. Well, from the looks of it, at least maybe NewSkeptic said enough to cover all of us. You da Man, NewSkep!... *thumbs up*...
@servantofAllah: Don't talk like the town dullard. The only person on this site that is really nasty is me. If you don't want people to be nasty to you... 1. Don't insult them. 2. Don't repeat your inane bullshit assertion once it has been demonstrated to be fallacious. 3. Admit when someone has made a good point. 4. Don't begin a post with "Everyone on this site." Hey! Are you familiar with the definition of "everyone" EVERYONE: every person.
YOU SAID "Everyone on this site is nasty." Well, shucks howdy Savant of Alla, you appear to be just as nasty as everyone else. Welcome to the party.
Now have a cookie and go to your room. It's almost time for the afternoon prayer.
RE: "I come on here to have a civil discussion." "The people on this site are nasty." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ... It's like listening to Laurel and Hardy on the radio. "Now don't remark me with your silly comments i.e. "boohoo little cry baby go suck your mommy" (I'M SORRY, AM I UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY? INSULTS ARE PERFECTLY FINE AS LONG AS WE DO NOT USE THE WORD "FUCK." THAT'S FUCKING RETARDED." FUCK ALLAH AND THE MAGICAL HORSE HE RODE TO THE MOON.
"Probably live in your mom's basement and think you can go on a ramble, It's a case of I don't how to have a civil discussion with you guys, your so immature nasty putrid filth vile scum."
Thank you for sharing. I am suspecting that this may be your last post.
RE: Maybe, just maybe if you weren't so pathetic I could actually debate with y'all. I know some of you on here are completely civil in your discussions and I respect you as human beings, but until all of you can learn how to respect others, then what's the point of being here.
What can we say..... You get what you give....... bye! :-)
I knew that was going to happen. God has blessed me with psychic ability.
These "trolls" damage the community and spirit of debate here. It would not surprise me there may be a few with the goal to try and discredit this site.
Worse still, these people write things, in an attempt to evoke anger, making the boards more nasty. Possibly further discrediting these boards in the eyes of a casual reader with a question. Only 2 percent of all global adults can read at high level, toss in all the E.S.L (English as a Second Language) readers and we are probably down to 1% of the global population that can actually read these forums and absorb the information provided here. To engage in debate at a high level with foreknowledge, proper research etc.
People that still try to read, are then confronted with language they know all to well, nastiness. And may not even bother to try to read more and get informed.
https://www.wyliecomm.com/2019/03/us-literacy-rate/ <== do not read if you do not want to get depressed about the global state of literacy.
Know your wanted audience.
@Logic: Wow! I had no idea literacy rates were that low. Great post! My office mates and I are bouncing this around. Great discussion.
My nomination for "Irony of the Year" award:
I don't how to have a civil discussion with you guys, your so immature nasty putrid filth vile scum.
Jesus made him do it.
"..and a lot of you seem like the most hostile, and nasty people on the planet..."
The saying that 'opposites attract' is nonsense. In life it's very much a matter of 'like attracts like' . That you found your way here and joined the forum with us being so nasty, says some rather unpleasant things about your good self . Perhaps begin with your arrogance of certainty, which is a sign of a small, closed mind.
If you truly believe we are some of the nastiest people on the planet you are truly fortunate . I think you really need to get out a LOT more, travel outside of your own country. Perhaps visit a country were the people are mainly kafirs.
The use of such a fatuous superlative suggests an adolescent, or at the very least, the possessor of a very immature mind .
In response to YOUR nastiness, arrogance and lack of respect; I lived in a Muslim country (Malaysia) ,and spent a lot of time in a local village mostly with Muslims .Without exception, I was treated with great kindness ,hospitality and respect.
You are welcome to come to this forum . You are not welcome to insist we share in what at least to me, are your personal superstitions and narrow, ignorant world view.
This is fairly disconcerting news. Who are these small proportion that are dragging our reputation through the mud, by politely placating these religious buffoons?
They need to up their game IMHO.
A huge proportion of people??? I think he is referring to Old Man. He is not riding that bike for no reason at all.
I have a question. How many humans make up a proportion? Do we count apes, tin men, cockatoos, butterflies, and gnomes?
I believe that when people gather in huge numbers, their collective IQ is inversely proportionate to the number of people present. At a certain level of stupidity you get an uncritical mass of idiocy in St Peter's Square.
Atheists don't tend to form masses, so our collective IQ stays very high. A huge proportion of atheists would be three or maybe 42.
Made me laugh out loud, have an agree....
Excuse me? My huge proportion is my business and travels very well snugged down next to my saddle.
"and travels very well snugged down next to my saddle."
Ewww, like the Mongols who placed fresh meat under their saddle in the morning?
After a day's riding, they had some very tenderized meat for the evening meal.
I dunno about tenderised but certainly after a long ride I am still stiff in the morning....
@Old Man: You can't mention meat without him bragging about the mornings.
In which case, you don't know me very well.
Oh look, it's the fake appeal to post style, as purportedly constituting a reason to dismiss the content, otherwise known as tone policing, a favourite tactic deployed by supernaturalists who want to shut down inconvenient exposition of their canards.
Allow me to introduce you to an elementary concept you manifestly never learned at school, but should have, and indeed, should have learned at an early age.
Quite simply, ideas, and assertions in particular, are a free-fire zone for whatever discoursive ordnance of choice may be brought to bear thereupon, to determine the merit of said ideas or assertions. If those ideas are transparently bad ideas, and presentation of cogent reasons why those ideas are bad ideas, fails to dissuade someone from clinging thereto, then after a point, a satirical response is manifestly warranted. Especially in the case of individuals who manifestly should know better, but, for reasons of stupidity, duplicity, or both, persist in their unreason.
Furthermore, if I observe that an assertion being presented, is not merely wrong, but absurd to a point that transcends Pythonesque comedy, but the presenter thereof not merely continues to persist clinging to said assertion, but resorts to various forms of abuse of discourse during said clinging, then the gloves come off. Among the more odious forms of discoursive abuse, that are particularly likely to provoke a "launch on warning" response, are the following:
 Deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of valid alternative postulates, along with likewise deliberate and wilful misattribution (the "you atheists think everything came from nothing" caricature being a particularly irksome double instance);
 Bad analogies presented as purportedly constituting fact;
 Any of a range of well-poisoning ad hominems, including:
[3a] Assertion that our acceptance of proper rules of discourse, and postulates validated within that framework, is the product of some form of "Deficiency" on our part (the whole sensus divinatus nonsense beloved of neo-Thomists being a particularly risible example);
[3b] Assertion that our acceptance of proper rules of discourse, etc., is the product of wilful malice on our part (anyone who claims that this is the product of an imaginary evil overlord pulling our puppet strings, will be the recipient of special scorn and derision);
 Resort to manifest apologetic fabrication as a substitute for proper evidential support of said assertion;
 Manifest wilful deployment of known fallacies, as an act of apologetic duplicity, including:
[5a] Quantifier abuse (known elsewhere as hasty generalisation);
[5b] Argumentum ad populum and variations thereof;
[5c] The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (namely, the after the fact drawing of synthetic apologetic bull's eyes around rigorous product of other human endeavour, then claiming that one's mythology thought of said products first, a species of conceptual theft that is particularly repellent);
[5d] Specious "probability" calculations, based upon unstated (and frequently, deliberately concealed) assumptions that, upon exposure, are found to be massively at variance with observational reality;
[5e] Fake appeals to any "authority" whose jurisdiction does not cover the topic at hand (e.g., specious appeals to the dictionary);
 Quote mining of scientific papers, or deliberate alteration of the contents thereof, in order to misrepresent the authors' intent, etc.;
 Copy-paste plagiarism (if you're going to post vast swathes of someone else's text, provide proper attribution);
and of course, the one that really pisses off many here, including myself, namely:
 Posting mythological assertions as if said assertions constituted established fact, when they manifestly do not.
Now if you want to claim, that repeated and egregious commission of the above doesn't deserve a suitably scornful response, then you're going to have to do a LOT of heavy lifting to establish that idea.
And you think those responsible for the above list of offences don't, just because they happen to be fellow mythological adherents?
Here's a clue for you. It doesn't matter how many instances of "fuck", "cunt" or the like, appear in a post, if the ideas contained therein are substantive and rigorous. On the other hand, egregious discoursive mischief is likely to be FAR more repellent to those of us who paid attention in class.
How many of the above discoursive offences I've listed are on your charge sheet? I'll be very surprised if the number is zero, not least because I've now acquired 12 years' experience of dealing with pedlars of apologetics, and none of them have a clean sheet.
The irony of seeing you whinge about purported discoursive misconduct on our part, whilst deploying this manifest ad hominem, is truly delicious to savour.
Let me guess ... this is going to be a gigantic butthurt fest, simply because we don't roll over and allow discoursive malfeasance to run riot here. Let's see how long it takes that particular prediction to come true, shall we?
And once again, the irony of seeing you whinge about purported discoursive misconduct on our part, whilst deploying this manifest ad hominem, is truly delicious to savour. Pot calling kettle for lack of chrome plated lustre springs to mind here ...
Keep digging that hole ever deeper, while we all gather round and enjoy the hilarity of the ensuing spectacle ...
Actually, it's precisely because many of us here possess a deep respect for civil society and its proper preservation, that we don't want to see it corrupted and perverted by mythological adherents with demonstrably sinister agendas.
Thus far, the one demonstrating discoursive deficiencies on a large scale here, is you.
Here's a clue for you. You are not your ideas. I know this elementary concept is a difficult one for supernaturalists to understand, because they've been taught from the start to treat certain ideas as "sacred", and as a corollary not only beyond question, but to constitute an essential part of the fabric of their being. But, lo and behold, what they've been taught in this respect is so blatantly in error, that it's difficult to know where to start undoing that error, so insidious are its multifarious tentacles. But in the interests of rigour, I shall start by stating an obvious, elementary fact, namely, people change their minds all the time. Ideas they once considered to be unassailable, they now look back upon, and wonder what led them to entertain those ideas. Admittedly, it's relatively unusual for cosmically shattering, wholesale changes of world view to take place, even over a period of time - more frequently, any changes of serious magnitude are the result of individual parts of the conceptual edifice failing to withstand scrutiny, one by one, until enough of those individual parts have failed to facilitate a collapse. But all of us can point to ideas we once regarded as sound, but which we now consider to be in error to a lesser of greater extent.
That's the reason why those of us who paid attention in class, recognise that ideas are a free-fire zone for discoursive ordnance. The ideas that survive the relevant discoursive artillery, and prove themselves to be robust in the face of test, are the ones that deserve to be a part of our conceptual edifice. The ideas that fail such test, are the ones to discard. It's precisely because we regard ideas as discardable entities, that we treat them in such a ruthless manner. We also recognise an important lesson from history, namely, that allowing bad ideas to persist and gain unwarranted currency, frequently invites the consequence of good people being snuffed out before their time. And it's precisely because we prefer not to see those good people being snuffed out before their time, that we regard it not merely as good discoursive practice to treat ideas as disposable, but a public duty to do so.
Unfortunately, because supernaturalists are wrongly taught to treat certain ideas as "sacred", and to make those ideas an integral part of their being, the moment those ideas are subject to vigorous scrutiny, the butthurt comes to the fore, because those same supernaturalists, as a result of the erroneous teaching they've received, mistakenly treat an attack on those ideas as a personal attack. It isn't.
Quite simply, those of us who paid attention in class, recognise that a lot of hard won victories against the forces of unreason and the darker side of our natures, were won by being epistemological German Shepherds - nurture those under our care, and fearlessly rise to meet the beasts of the night that would harm them.
And having finished that particular editorial excursion, I shall now take a break.
Another excellent post.
I suspect a strong majority of what you wrote here will fly right over the head of this guy. Which makes it more amusing, at least to me. Especially considering this guy has indicated multiple times in his writings that he thinks he is smarter, more knowledgeable, and educated, on whatever subject of discussion we have, then the lot of us regulars combined. All the while being convinced he rides the moral high horse here that offers him a perceived but not actualized, supposed "moral" superiority over us.
I can read and write at a college graduate level. In my opinion, you write at a doctoral thesis level. Except instead of taking a semester or two to do it, you can do it in a few hours or less. (With much of your prerequisite study and research heavy lifting already done beforehand I assume.) I continue to be in awe of your writing skills.
Perhaps on some level, this guy (if he is not just simply trolling for responses,) will realize, that while his words are very convincing to other adherents of his religion (or similar religions) his arguments are barely "a bug on the windshield" to anyone that actually demands real, actionable evidence for his god ideas. And like a bug on the windshield, it is easy as pressing a button to wipe the smear, (his unevidenced arguments or distractions) clean.
It is my guess this guy will not respond to your post at all, or perhaps try some sort of "TLDR" angle and not address 1/10th of what you wrote. Perhaps write another post that addresses none of what you wrote, but try to save face by trying to find some other hot button topic to get a rise out of folks, in attempt to distract he has no rebuttal the the points you and others raise.
@Cali Re: Bitch-slap post
As usual, outstanding! Read every single word and enjoyed it immensely. Always a pleasure seeing your rebuttals pop up on the boards... *grin*...
"Here's a clue for you. You are not your ideas. I know this elementary concept is a difficult one for supernaturalists to understand, because they've been taught from the start to treat certain ideas as "sacred", and as a corollary not only beyond question, but to constitute an essential part of the fabric of their being. But, lo and behold, what they've been taught in this respect is so blatantly in error, that it's difficult to know where to start undoing that error, so insidious are its multifarious tentacles. But in the interests of rigour, I shall start by stating an obvious, elementary fact, namely, people change their minds all the time. Ideas they once considered to be unassailable, they now look back upon, and wonder what led them to entertain those ideas. Admittedly, it's relatively unusual for cosmically shattering, wholesale changes of world view to take place, even over a period of time - more frequently, any changes of serious magnitude are the result of individual parts of the conceptual edifice failing to withstand scrutiny, one by one, until enough of those individual parts have failed to facilitate a collapse. But all of us can point to ideas we once regarded as sound, but which we now consider to be in error to a lesser of greater extent."
For whatever it is worth, I agree.
Brilliantly and wonderfully written, as always.
I would like to qualify my "amen" just a little bit.
Naturalists are not immune from holding certain ideas as sacred.
We all are better at turning the bright light of skepticism on others, than we are on ourselves.
It is easy to see how others are wrong. It is hard to see how I am wrong.
Isn't saying that no idea should be sacred a contradiction?
Isn't that (no idea is sacred) a sacred idea?
Should no idea ever be sacred?
Are there no ideas that constitute a sacred part of the fabric of your being?
Just an observation...
Either Jo has really-really-really short legs, or he is hung like a gifted horse. Because he certainly does step on his own dick quite often around here. Just sayin'... *shrugging shoulders*...
"Should no idea ever be sacred?"
Everything should always be under scrutiny and attack. If it fails to hold up, then it goes to the trash bin. Only the best explanation for any phenomena should be accepted.
Nothing is sacred.
RE: JO "You are not your ideas." FFS - Tin! Hand me the flyswatter! If we hang an electric light in the thread will Jo fly into it and die?