@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...

@servantofAllah

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.

Since Servantofallah can see “no point of being here,” he’s been escorted from the building.

@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! :-)

Sounds legit

Jesus made him do it.

servantofAllah

"A huge proportion of people on this site are nasty"

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.

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.

In which case, you don't know me very well.

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.

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:

[1] 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);

[2] Bad analogies presented as purportedly constituting fact;

[3] 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);

[4] Resort to manifest apologetic fabrication as a substitute for proper evidential support of said assertion;

[5] 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);

[6] Quote mining of scientific papers, or deliberate alteration of the contents thereof, in order to misrepresent the authors' intent, etc.;

[7] 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:

[8] 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.

You guys repel people like magnets facing each other with a B-field of infinite Tesla.

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.

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.

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.

I'll tell you why you people from inside are just hollow shells of existence, childish in nature and just low human beings.

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?

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

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 ...

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.

Keep digging that hole ever deeper, while we all gather round and enjoy the hilarity of the ensuing spectacle ...

No respect for society, it's values and the different religions.

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.

Maybe, just maybe if you weren't so pathetic I could actually debate with y'all.

Thus far, the one demonstrating discoursive deficiencies on a large scale here, is you.

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.

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.