All Lies FSM

[MarathonMan]

I begin by citing only two of your rules:

3. NO ad hominem attacks. We address the qualities of the ideas discussed here, NOT the people expressing those ideas.

4. Posts should be substantive. Learn to use the quote function and edit function to ensure posts are clear and concise. See rule 5.

In point of fact, ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non for atheists everywhere. Without consummate, pathological arrogance, atheists are virtually speechless. To the extent that there may be a few exceptions to this rule, they never have the courage, the balls to admonish their fellow atheists. Never.

At long last, have you no courage, no integrity?

Perusing dozens and dozens of posts here, I have yet to read anything substantive. This is in stark contradiction to the intellectual claims ubiquitously made by all veganzans.

Lies do not become you.

[daftbeaker]

Wurbleburblesclup? Have you even checked out any of this board? If you had then you would know it's not an atheist group. While most members are atheists or agnostics, there are muslim and christian members as well. The FSM as a group is against the teaching of creationism in science classes.

Second, we have plenty of arguments. Check out the serious discussion topics, you'll find plenty of disagreements.

Also, you're a pooface.

[Roy Hunter]

OOH! A live one!

In point of fact, ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non for atheists everywhere.

Nice Latin salad dressing on a rather bland sweeping generalisation. Don't assert facts without supporting evidence. If you do, people will call you a pooface.

At long last, have you no courage, no integrity?

My courage and integrity is not time-dependent. How about yours?

Perusing dozens and dozens of posts here, I have yet to read anything substantive. This is in stark contradiction to the intellectual claims ubiquitously made by all veganzans.

I would stay out of Rant, Rave and Misbehave if you want substantive posts.

Lies do not become you.

No, but a dalek helmet does.

I will see you in Serious Discussion if you want to play. We have rules in Serious: please stick to them, or else we will have that whole tiresome you-getting-banned thing.

RAmen!

[MarathonMan]

OOH! A live one!

In point of fact, ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non for atheists everywhere.

Nice Latin salad dressing on a rather bland sweeping generalisation. Don't assert facts without supporting evidence. If you do, people will call you a pooface.

What you so disingenuously call "supporting evidence" somehow never seems to suffice for someone wearing a silly child's helmet, and pretending to be extraordinarily enlightened.

"Richard Dawkins book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist," said a fellow scholar and fellow atheist of Dawkins' "The God Delusion.

At long last, have you no courage, no integrity?

My courage and integrity is not time-dependent. How about yours?

Perusing dozens and dozens of posts here, I have yet to read anything substantive. This is in stark contradiction to the intellectual claims ubiquitously made by all veganzans.
ROY HUNTER: I would stay out of Rant, Rave and Misbehave if you want substantive posts.

Lies do not become you. *SUBSTANTIVE* ROY HUNTER: No, but a dalek helmet does.

I will see you in Serious Discussion if you want to play. We have rules in Serious: please stick to them, or else we will have that whole tiresome you-getting-banned thing.

RAmen!

I was unable to find anything labeled "Serious Discussion" in just a few minute search. I shan't be spending any more time than that looking, since what I have found so far is so incredibly childish and anti-intellectual.

Here are some "substantive" examples for you to excuse and reject at your leisure.

Must the Flying Spaghetti Monster Always fly contiuously? (SIC)
by drbuzz0 on Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:36 pm

March. Only six months old. Isn't this website popular.


Flying Spaghetti Monster Versus Invisible Pink Unicorn
1, 2, 3by jefferywinkler on Tue May 16, 2006 11:56 am

Look, another "substantive post" from an intellectual atheist. And it's dated 2006,
still on the first page. IMPRESSIVE!

FSM Sightings on the Internet
1 ... 13, 14, 15by Omnieiunium on Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:11 am

Now we're back to 2005. Even your own kind don't seem to care much for this
atheist monastery of strict belief in nothing.

The community is not active enough.
1 ... 4, 5, 6by vikinglordSF on Sat May 23, 2009 12:49 pm


Seriously. You said it. Pathological narcissism really sucks, doesn't it.

[Tigger_the_Wing]

Reading ability. You need it.


THIS IS NOT AN ATHEIST SITE!


There. Big enough for you?

Anyway, I'm bored today. I'll happily lie here and watch you demolish strawmen for as long as you have the energy. Beats Australian Daytime television and is nearly as intellectual!

[daftbeaker]

"Richard Dawkins book makes me embarrassed to be an atheist," said a fellow scholar and fellow atheist of Dawkins' "The God Delusion.

I can't resist reacting to this one. For someone who complains about the argument from authority, that's a textbook example. Personally, I really liked The God Delusion (except for the daft crane metaphor he never really explained). I'm an atheist with a degree so I guess that cancels out whatever point you were trying to make.

I was unable to find anything labeled "Serious Discussion" in just a few minute search. I shan't be spending any more time than that looking, since what I have found so far is so incredibly childish and anti-intellectual.

Let me help you, you bizarre lunatic. Top left corner, you'll find a thing that says 'Board Index'. If you click that, it lists all the sub-forums. I know you've seen that page because you posted in the World of Other Stuff - Books and Authors section. The one you're looking for is the 'Serious Discussion' bit, handily split into 6 sub-sections for discussion of creationism, science, current events, religion, long running arguments and generally thinking out loud. Difficult to find, I know.

Here are some "substantive" examples for you to excuse and reject at your leisure.
FSM Sightings on the Internet
1 ... 13, 14, 15by Omnieiunium on Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:11 am

Now we're back to 2005. Even your own kind don't seem to care much for this
atheist monastery of strict belief in nothing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. If you'd bothered to check you'd find that the thread is what is called a 'sticky' which is a thread that is permanently attached to the top of the front page. Also, the last post was made in it on the 26th of August, 22 days ago. Your problem is that we post in old threads regularly?

Pooface

[Tigger_the_Wing]

I would like to repeat the immortal words of my learned young friend,

Pooface


That's an insult, by the way. Insults are not 'ad hominem attacks' and are therefore not against the rules.

[daftbeaker]

I would like to repeat the immortal words of my learned young friend,

Pooface

[Edd]

This troll seems very familiar. I wish I could remember the alias he used before but his appearance here was probably sparked by a mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster over at Pharyngula.

[Tigger_the_Wing]

This troll seems very familiar. I wish I could remember the alias he used before but his appearance here was probably sparked by a mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster over at Pharyngula.

Do you see his join date? 18 Sep 2009, so he must have joined and then forgotten to post, or had all his posts deleted.

[PKMKII]

In point of fact, ad hominem attacks are the sine qua non for atheists everywhere. Without consummate, pathological arrogance, atheists are virtually speechless. To the extent that there may be a few exceptions to this rule, they never have the courage, the balls to admonish their fellow atheists. Never.

Hellooooooooo, Strawman argument!

[Edd]

This troll seems very familiar. I wish I could remember the alias he used before but his appearance here was probably sparked by a mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster over at Pharyngula.

Do you see his join date? 18 Sep 2009, so he must have joined and then forgotten to post, or had all his posts deleted.

That's why he seemed so familiar! It's the same guy and, for some reason, his account is still active.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

I agree that a lot of the stuff here isn't "substantive." We haven't really had a good discussion in quite some time. There used to be much hotter debates when we were younger, trendier, and attracted more people on the opposite side of the debate. Of course, many of those discussion are now in Old Posts or Locked, or have simply been pruned.

We'd all be happy to have real discussions once again. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I invite you to create or revive any topic of discussion in any of the serious sections of the forum.

And as far as enforcement of the actual rules, that rule is in place because we don't want people just posting the same post over and over again, or posting something that says only one word, or is just "I agree" or "I disagree." It's like those questions that ask a question, and then say "Why?" at the end. Don't worry that we're not enforcing our own rules. They really don't come into play much because things are fairly quiet around here; our admin rarely feels the need to show her presence. For the most part it's just us friends hanging out.

In short, I agree with you. Let's have a substantive discussion.

[Calico Jack]

Let me at him! Let me at him I say!!!!

Even Jack knows where to find "Serious Section" on the forum.

Maybe MarathonMan got his panties in a bunch.

ACK

Pooface funny.

[Almighty Doer of Stuff]

Actually I believe he's right about one thing. Don't you need at least five posts to see the Serious section? He only has four.