Ok, folks, this horse now appears to be beaten to death.

And ... it's time for the editorial response ...

I have reviewed a couple threads where Users were new to Atheist Republic. Folks, the tone for a discourse is established in the first couple exchanges. I got to call it like I see it. I looked at the homosexuality thread involving Joy. IMO, Tin-Man fired the first shot across her bow. He set the tone!

What part of "the regulars here have seen so many canards and outright lies from the mythology fanboys, that we can detect them in our sleep" do you not understand?

Also, what part of "unsupported assertions are a free-fire zone for whatever invective we choose to unleash thereupon" do you also not understand?

While on the subject of "things you don't understand", there's also the expression of satirical humour that has evolved over time among the regulars here. An acquired taste admittedly, but I quickly recognised it for what it was within, oh, about 12 hours of arriving here.

Though I'm also aware, as a result of seeing this in action over a period of 12 years encompassing numerous different forums, of the manner in which mythology fanboys not only fail to understand various applicable elementary concepts, but have a habit of wilfully refusing to understand said concepts.

Here is my point, let us not be hypocrites. I see folks doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

Wrong. What you see here, is the entirely predictable expression of exasperation, as yet another mythology fanboy turns up here with the same tired old canards, bullshit and outright lies, thinking that said tired old canards, bullshit and outright lies that have been destroyed repeatedly in the past, constitute some killer brand of "wisdom" with which said mythology fanboy thinks he's going to "stick it to the stupid atheists". This has happened so often here and on other rationalist forums, that if I had been paid £20 every time I observed this in action, I would now be retiring to a 200 foot penis-extension Bond villain yacht in Monte Carlo on the proceeds.

In my time here, I observed that posts that don't validate the values, beliefs, and philosophy of the "like-minded" majority are not welcome. Opposing views on this forum are treated like a violation.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit.

If you bother to stick around here, you'll learn that what matters most of all to those of us who paid attention in class, is respect for the proper rules of discourse. Rules of discourse that are frequently subject to flagrant and egregious violation by mythology fanboys. Among which, the more important ones are:

[1] Assertions do not equal fact. Assertions, in the absence of test remedying the requisite epistemological deficit, retain the status "truth value unknown" until said test is performed.

[2] The methods of test of assertions that have thus far been demonstrably reliable are:

[2a] Error-free derivation within an appropriate formal system (see: pure mathematics);
[2b] Correspondence with observational data (see: the empirical sciences).

Anyone who wishes to claim that a different method of test is purportedly superior to the above, is required to provide not only a detailed exposition of the underlying methodology and its operation, but evidence of the reliability of said alternative.

[3] In the absence of submissions fulfilling the criteria set out above, assertions are discardable entities. Indeed, ideas themselves are discardable entities, the moment relevant data or deduction informs us that specific ideas should be discarded, except for pedagogical purposes.

Failure to understand the above will result in a rough ride here. We're not going to lower our standards to accommodate the incompetence of hubristic and entitlement-riddled newcomers.

May I plea that we take the high road. Let the newcomers draw first blood.

Frequently, we let them do just that. Or had you failed to observe this in certain relevant threads?

Quite simply, the moment known and repeatedly destroyed canards are detected, it's time to launch the discoursive ICBMs. To borrow an aphorism from the movie Till Dawn's Early Light, it's 2-1-Zebra time.

I will not stay here if this is what we are.

Have fun digesting the above, and learn what we actually are.