All Lies FSM

[Qwertyuiopasd]

I certainly hope that's not the case. 5 posts to be able to post in serious would be a reasonable rule, but to have it even be hidden from guests or registered users with less than 5 posts seems... insane and counter-intuitive. Maybe that is why we haven't had as much serious discussion as of late?

[Almighty Doer of Stuff]

I thought the idea was to prevent trolls from coming in and ruining all the debate. Five posts would be enough to tell if someone's a troll, like Mr. MarathonMan. RR&M might be the same way, but for the reason that people won't be able to come in, register, and immediately look for dirt on people they know hang around here.

[Qwertyuiopasd]

Restricting posting privileges would achieve the same means, without restricting the ability to see, read, and think about the serious discussions. I feel if there is any one "product" of our forum, it should be the serious discussions.

If people can't see the section, then we have misunderstandings like this, or people who choose not to join, because this all looks very silly and not serious at all.

RR&M is a special case, and while I'm all for having it be publicly viewed (though again, not posting privileges), I can understand why we keep it invisible.

[daftbeaker]

As far as I'm aware the only restricted forum is RR&M and that only requires being a member to see. Certainly when I log out that's the only section I can't see on the Board Index.

If my banana had thought to tell me his password I'd use his account to check but the silly sod forgot it

[MarathonMan]

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.

Bravo, sir. Someone here with some courage. The problem is this: You are one, and the hateful name-callers are many. Atheists do not engage in debate so much as they call names, and feign intellectual supremacy, arrogance, and unbridled offensiveness.

To the extent that your posts are so extremely old, your pal has already admitted that I am "A LIVE ONE," in obvious contrast to most everyone else around here, I have little interest in "a substantive discussion" until you can begin to get this fetid house in order.

That will take place at about the same time the earth's core reaches temperature equilibrium with the then frozen oceans.

[MarathonMan]

/// Maybe that is why we haven't had as much serious discussion as of late?

Or of early for that matter.

Truth be told, you don't WANT serious discussion. You folks are all about name-calling.

"pooface" seems to be a favorite of this profoundly *intellectual* and *enlightened* bunch.

Why in my college classes, we heard the word "pooface" all the time, bien sur.

Now please scream and cry at your Moderator to BAN ME for pointing out the glaringly obvious.

If you are all remotely as *intellectual* and *intelligent* as you eternally pretend to be, why did
it take an outsider to alert you to the death of your spaghetti-ism nonsense?

And why aren't you all giggling in unison right now?

[Qwertyuiopasd]

They probably are all giggling, actually.

The problem here is that while you're accusing us of not wanting to pursue serious discussion, and only doing name calling, you're also guilty of basically the same thing. You don't seem to be interested in serious discussion either, or you would've accepted my invitation. Instead, you simply rant here about our desire and motives (which is odd, since you aren't any of us, not sure how you think you know the reasons that any of us are here), and say that all we are about is name-calling.

Serious discussion requires both sides to sit down and discuss maturely. I'm willing to do that even if others here aren't (I mean the mature part, you poofaces). It is now up to you to sit down at the table of discussion without bias or prejudice.

You still haven't answered the question of whether or not you can see the section labeled "Serious." If you can, I still invite you to create a thread discussing any topic you'd like (though probably not the same one as this thread), and I believe you will find serious discussion will follow (though you may need to ignore some childish insults, but isn't that also part of maturity?). If you can't see the section, we can look into it as a technical error. I think we established that as a registered user you should be able to see and post in there, though.

[daftbeaker]

When you start treating me with respect, I will argue sensibly. As long as you continue your bizarre slanders and strawman arguments, I will continue to call you a pooface.

Pooface

[Cardinal Fang]

To be honest I'm just assuming that either our friend can't see the Serious section at all, or has a different view of what constitutes a "substantive" discussion. I am enjoying the discussions about Homeopathy, and the one about the current kiddie fiddling scandal in the Catholic Church, both of which I would consider to be substantive.

Of course I also very much enjoy the random silliness and odd discussions as well (see the IPU and other subjects). That's the good thing about this NON ATHEIST forum (sorry - I don't know if anyone has mentioned that yet). Silliness and serious in one place.

But MM - welcome anyway.

CF

P.S. I personally wouldn't say "pooface" - I'd go with numpty

[daftbeaker]

P.S. I personally wouldn't say "pooface" - I'd go with numpty

Hmm. Numpty suggests a clueless but well-meaning buffoon to me whereas what I think we have is our old friend RenaissanceMan (or someone very like him) who suffered from this amazing inability to understand what an atheist is and generally sprays crap all over everything. I find pooface a very appropriate term for someone talking so much s***

[PKMKII]

Truth be told, you don't WANT serious discussion.

Do you want serious discussion? No offense, but you seem like the type that just wants to rant off some accusations at as, make a lot of arguments, and then promptly ignore anyone's responses. If you want discussion, then fine, go ahead and make some. If you just want to lecture us on how wrong we are and then ignore our retorts, then please just continue arguing with the straw man inside your head and don't patronize us.

[ET, the Extra Terrestrial]

Oh, yeah - it's RenaissanceMan come back to entertain us again for sure.

Atheists do not engage in debate so much as they call names, and feign intellectual supremacy, arrogance, and unbridled offensiveness.

I'm sure you have the data to back that up. My observations tell me that the primary reasons evangelicals and biblical literalists come to this website is to rant and rage against anything that points out flaws in their 'reasoning', and to feign intellectual and moral superiority over us poor heathen. So far you fit the bill pretty well. I think it's not an unfair characterization to substitute the words "evangelical Christians" for "Atheists" in your statement above. In fact, I think it would make the statement a lot more accurate. So far, your most recent appearance has been fraught with little else.

In case you haven't figured it out on your own, I'm one of the atheists.

Almost everything we have learned has been learned from authority.

I'm thinking "nope" here. In the majority of cases in my experience, we taught ourselves. Science labs were for fiddling with stuff, and then figuring out reasons for whatever we observed. Teachers and professors provided some guidance, but oddly enough the reasons and rules for why things happened the way they did aways worked out to be the same reasons and rules that others had figured out previously. I'm self-taught on the guitar, and I'm not too shabby (though I say so myself). I figured out for myself that there was no reason to believe in the legends put forth as unquestionable truths in every religion I've looked at. Maybe you believe everything anyone tells you, but not everyone is so easily convinced.

Atheists are really mentally ill. Having no god, they must worship something, and this
inevitably leads to self-worship, pathological narcissism.

Stating your opinion as fact does not make it fact. I don't feel any need to worship anything. You accuse us of insulting you, yet you start off by insulting us. You accuse us of arrogance, all the while exhibiting the most astonishing arrogance and assumptions of moral and intellectual superiority. If you can't see your own reflection in the mirror, perhaps you should look again before spouting your hate-filled message. Love thy neighbor, indeed.

If you want to believe in your "higher power", go right ahead. I won't object. I will object most strenuously to your attempts to use your belief to disparage me or my friends. You accuse us of arrogance - you exhibit arrogance far beyond anything I'd be willing to tolerate in my home. If you brought that attitude to my house, I'd throw you out. If you want to have a serious discussion, lose the arrogance. Don't expect me or anyone else to accept your blatant assumption that your way of thinking is the only valid interpretation of reality.

RAmen.

[Tigger_the_Wing]

^

[Nef Yoo BlackBeard]

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Hoboy !
A TROLL !

Et bea a longggggggg tyme sins we hadda troll !
i hope ya stay a while coz ye trolls be lots of fun !
coz ye be silly lik me !
an ye say repeatatiff dum stuff jus lik me !


But ye be arrygant doh ... dat not a good fing ... coz et make ye look lik a idjit ... an tha onlee idjits dat be tolleratid heer be dum critters an beasties an me ... ya shuld be humbull lik me ! ... an den alla yung kidz reeding yeer posts wont fink ya juss be sum pimply wanker wiff not much ove a brane ... coz ya sownd likka broke back record or sumfing dum lik dat ... saying tha same fing alla tyme ... dunt ya have anyfing atellygint ta say ?
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Show us ya reely got a brane ... an dunt look at me ta help ya coz i 2 yung ta hava brane.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[daftbeaker]

Who would have thought it, a thread where Calico Jack and Nef Yoo both posted something broadly intelligible that I agree with