Sciforums should add to their policy "members are not allowed to be critical of atheism, only critical of theism, because we moderators are atheists and won't tolerate a fair and open debate of certain subjects, we have such an immense bias, we need to shape things in order to favor atheism"

For instance, these threads critical of theism and ridiculing theism (favoring atheism) are left unlocked, opened, and the debate is allowed to continue:
"Is belief in God self-delusional?" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5200
"To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70888
"theists are more selfish than atheists" -
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70176l
"The problem with magical thinking, poor education, and poor communication" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60169

The list can go on forever

These threads are also left unlocked, I wonder why :rolleyes: :
"To my beautiful Atheists" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54889
" Faith is Christian. Other Religions are Real" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71810
"Jesus Action-figure" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70312
"allah" the stone god! - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71568

This one is locked:
"God is in all things" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72651

Apparently the thread "God is in all things" offered no debate and no substance but the thread "Jesus Action-fgure" does according to the moderators :rolleyes:

My threads critical of atheism "Why are atheists fools?" ( http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72615 ) and "Why aren't you atheists agnostic?" ( http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72677 ) are locked, apparently pointing out logical fallacies of atheism is considered "trolling" but ridiculing theism isn't trolling, and should be praised, its a great thing to do, but criticizing atheism, why thats horrible

The list can go on forever

But my thread critical of atheism "Why are atheists fools?" is locked...

Your rants seem to go on forever, too. If you had an ounce of synthesis, you'd notice that you used the word, 'fools' in your title. That should give you a hint. :rolleyes:

Its called the Stockholm Syndrome, commonly seen in victims after prolonged contact with their oppressor.

They have all been "touched" by his noodly appendage.

You must pity, not revile them :bawl:

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/god_is_not_noodly.jpg

So basically you guys can't explain why

All other posts critical of theism in the same manner are always left unlocked, opened, the debate is allowed to continue, clearly you all are hostile towards having a fair and open debate and only lock posts that are critical towards atheism

Perhaps all that's needed is for you theists to upgrade your debating skills with the atheists—modernise it with some attitude and spice it up with a bit of flippancy, cheekiness, panache, and urban roguishness. Oh—and a sissy avatar might be of use too.

Perhaps all that's needed is for you theists to upgrade your debating skills with the atheists—modernise it with some attitude and spice it up with a bit of flippancy, cheekiness, panache, and urban roguishness. Oh—and a sissy avatar might be of use too.

My debating skills far surpassed any atheist's debating skills, they point out logical fallacies, address the substance of the argument, explain the position clearly, etc...all atheists have is "well I don't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster", just read the differences in the posts...

My debating skills far surpassed any atheist's debating skillsWell, that's not quite the attitude I was suggesting... You gotta, like, get in the spirit of things. Debating is also a performance, an entertainment. And also consider that people here tend to perform for their own sisterhood.

Well, that's not quite the attitude I was suggesting... You gotta, like, get in the spirit of things. Debating is also a performance, an entertainment. And also consider that people here tend to perform for their own sisterhood.

I don't really understand what you're saying about getting into the spirit of things

pardon
in order to alleviate my ignorance of these alleged inconsistencies inherent in atheism, i request you present a few examples

i wish to learn

Well, that's not quite the attitude I was suggesting... You gotta, like, get in the spirit of things. Debating is also a performance, an entertainment. And also consider that people here tend to perform for their own sisterhood.

hoo hah
me like
me likes it a lot

pardon
in order to alleviate my ignorance of these alleged inconsistencies inherent in atheism, i request you present a few examples

i wish to learn

Its in the post "Why aren't atheists agnostic?", also I don't want to turn this off-topic

pardon
it is very much on topic

a successful presentation would have additional benefits
fer instance

you rub it in aka in your face, mofo's!
exit with a 21 gun salute

oh
would you prefer to crip walk? or dance a merry jig
your choice

i feel sorry for the atheist
your confidence is contagious
and i hate backing losers

i just loooove event planning

/primping

My debating skills far surpassed any atheist's debating skills, right

they point out logical fallacies,uhuh


address the substance of the argument, hrm

explain the position clearly, really


etc...all atheists have is "well I don't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster", Ok if you can understand what it wrong with this statement perhaps you'll be on the way to understanding why your thread was locked.

I don't really understand what you're saying about getting into the spirit of thingsOh come on! They're having fun knocking you around—so try having fun, too. Tit for tat, sort of thing. The trick is to not relinquish your hold on power once you feel the momentum is not affecting you emotionally.

Gustav, in a successful presentation, one should know what the words that he uses mean. Get ready for a wild ride ;)

i feel sorry for the atheist
your confidence is contagious
and i hate backing losersExcellent!

Well I have lots of fun, especially seeing how hilarious these atheists are when they get real desperate, its soooo funny, but it gets annoying when your thread is locked and no one can reply...

right

uhuh

hrm

really

Ok if you can understand what it wrong with this statement perhaps you'll be on the way to understanding why your thread was locked.

The thread was locked because you didn't want anyone to be able to reply anymore to the topic....obviously, there's no other cause besides this

Can you answer why other posts criticizing theism in the exact manner are always left open?

I don't really understand what you're saying about getting into the spirit of thingsOh, and I forgot to mention: it would really be unfair for you theists to call on the Almighty during these debates—no dirty fighting, see?

I didn't lock the thread VitalOne. I just happened to be the last post.

Perhaps you should re-read that definition of a troll that I found.

Besides, according to you the thread was finished.

"I'm going to declare myself the winner of this debate since everything I said in line with logic, atheists have lost the debate, its over "

I didn't lock the thread VitalOne. I just happened to be the last post.

Perhaps you should re-read that definition of a troll that I found.

Besides, according to you the thread was finished.

Yeah, but I still wanted people to be ablet o reply, I thought you locked it, I guess its a strange coincidence...

Well I have lots of fun, especially seeing how hilarious these atheists are when they get real desperate, its soooo funny, but it gets annoying when your thread is locked and no one can reply...Bah—think nothing of it; there'll be many more debates and many more locked horns. But I'm curious: might it be that a locked thread is a sign of their defeat? But it's bad manners to crow.

Your rants seem to go on forever, too. If you had an ounce of synthesis, you'd notice that you used the word, 'fools' in your title. That should give you a hint. :rolleyes:

he is not intrested in debate he is intrested in stroking his own inflated ego

My debating skills far surpassed any atheist's debating skills, they point out logical fallacies, address the substance of the argument, explain the position clearly, etc...all atheists have is "well I don't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster", just read the differences in the posts...

i call bullshit on you in post of yours they are not logical nor do you seem to want debate for when you once questioned my source and i asked to you to provide sources for your counter claim you did not al the while ranting about the problems you saw in my source which i may had were only in your head

i call bullshit on you in post of yours they are not logical nor do you seem to want debate for when you once questioned my source and i asked to you to provide sources for your counter claim you did not al the while ranting about the problems you saw in my source which i may had were only in your head
I don't know wtf you're talking about....can you point it out?

he is not intrested in debate he is intrested in stroking his own inflated ego
Yeah right, so I get it atheists should be fully allowed to say theists are delusional but theists can't say atheists are fools...

If I didn't want a debate why would I want people to address the argument

I don't know wtf you're talking about....can you point it out?


Yeah right, so I get it atheists should be fully allowed to say theists are delusional but theists can't say atheists are fools...

If I didn't want a debate why would I want people to address the argument

becuase you make demands upon people but refuse to hold yourself to the same standerds like my thread about healthcare you demanded a source from i gave one when i asked for a source for your counter claims you refused

becuase you make demands upon people but refuse to hold yourself to the same standerds like my thread about healthcare you demanded a source from i gave one when i asked for a source for your counter claims you refused

Uhm..no you didn't, you should to read your own thread man...

becuase you make demands upon people but refuse to hold yourself to the same standerds like my thread about healthcare you demanded a source from i gave one when i asked for a source for your counter claims you refused

That is his M.O. He reminds me of duende a bit:D

Uhm..no you didn't, you should to read your own thread man...

i have read it that how come i know what it says

Oh, and I forgot to mention: it would really be unfair for you theists to call on the Almighty during these debates—no dirty fighting, see?

i say!

/lost in admiration and a weed induced fugue

Yeah right, so I get it atheists should be fully allowed to say theists are delusional but theists can't say atheists are fools...

Oh, I see the problem now, you need a dictionary. Here ya go:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fool

Now, if you can't figure it out from here, you've got some serious comprehension problems.

Now, if you can't figure it out from here, you've got some serious comprehension problems.

did you just call him a moron?

Last time I did that (James R) I got an infraction. Which was unfair because I demonstrated he was one.

Oh, I see the problem now, you need a dictionary. Here ya go:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fool

Now, if you can't figure it out from here, you've got some serious comprehension problems.

All the dictionary demonstrates is that calling someone delusional is just the same as calling them a fool, thanks for proving my point

did you just call him a moron?

No, I did not. Where did you get that from?

All the dictionary demonstrates is that calling someone delusional is just the same as calling them a fool, thanks for proving my point

Thanks for reconfirming what we already know about you VO. Typical VO tactic. VO loves illogic and ignorance. His faith based arguments are so foolish. Just what I predicted VO would say. etc...

Look familiar?

All the dictionary demonstrates is that calling someone delusional is just the same as calling them a fool, thanks for proving my point

So, you are unable to understand definitions, too? I'm afraid it will impossible to continue any kind of discussion with you if you're unable to comprehend the English language. Sorry. :shrug:

So, you are unable to understand definitions, too? I'm afraid it will impossible to continue any kind of discussion with you if you're unable to comprehend the English language. Sorry. :shrug:
The dictionary demonstrates just what I said, saying someone is delusional or believing in something that's false is nearly the same as saying they're a fool or stupid person, your post only demonstrates YOUR lack of comprehension

Clearly you have no argument..."you're wrong I say so" ahahahaa, this is the typical atheistic argument

Thanks for reconfirming what we already know about you VO. Typical VO tactic. VO loves illogic and ignorance. His faith based arguments are so foolish. Just what I predicted VO would say. etc...

Look familiar?
In other words, you have no argument, "I say you're wrong, you're wrong" this is the atheists' trademark when they can no longer respond with arguments

The dictionary demonstrates just what I said, saying someone is delusional or believing in something that's false is nearly the same as saying they're a fool or stupid person, your post only demonstrates YOUR lack of comprehension

No, saying someone is delusional is not the same as calling them a fool. Please try thinking.

No, saying someone is delusional is not the same as calling them a fool. Please try thinking.

I never said it had the same meaning, I said calling someone delusional was just the same as calling them a fool, its in equal weight, clearly you lack comprehension skills

If I say "you're delusional" and I say "you're a fool" both are equally insults, but you see moderators filled with immense bias so they fully allow atheists to say "theists are delusional", I mean the atheists' savior Richard Dawkins book is based off it, so ofcourse its allowed but "atheists are fools" is not allowed, its a horrible thing to say since its against atheism, anything against atheism is horrible

what ya reading?

Clearly you have no argument...

this is the typical atheistic argument...

In other words, you have no argument...

this is the atheists' trademark...

Oh, my sides are splitting!!! :D:D

Oh, my sides are splitting!!! :D:D

Yeah ofcourse they are, when atheists get desparate these are the tactics they start using

...atheists get desparate these are the tactics...
OH Stop! I need to catch my breath! :D:D:D

I never said it had the same meaning, I said calling someone delusional was just the same as calling them a fool, its in equal weight

I agree, they may be equally important, but that does not preclude the fact they have different definitions.

clearly you lack comprehension skills

No, I did comprehend your flawed response.

If I say "you're delusional" and I say "you're a fool" both are equally insults

That is where you're wrong.

By calling you or your beliefs delusional, I'm merely pointing out that you are under the characterizations of delusions, that the beliefs you hold are fantasies.

Yet, if I call you a fool, I'm insulting you as a person in that I'm claiming you are blatantly being stupid.

Holding beliefs and being stupid are two different things, although one can easily follow the other or be the result.

No, I did not. Where did you get that from?

i'm a professional mind reader.

Too many flames here.

Too many flames here.

in my pants too.

Too many flames here.
You calling us gay?

i'm a professional mind reader.

Therefore, the 'speed of thought' is proportional to the distance traveled divided by the attuned cogitation frequency. :D

You calling us gay?

Your head still up there? :bugeye:

Therefore, the 'speed of thought' is proportional to the distance traveled divided by the attuned cogitation frequency. :D

I just record, not think.

Too many flames here.

So you're probably going to Russia for your next mission and betray and leave them like you left the others? Who you're working for?

"members are not allowed to be critical of atheism, only critical of theism, because we moderators are atheists and won't tolerate a fair and open debate of certain subjects, we have such an immense bias, we need to shape things in order to favor atheism"
- I fully agree.. :rolleyes:

this is the typical atheistic argument...
The typical theist argument, well at least yours..

I agree, they may be equally important, but that does not preclude the fact they have different definitions.



No, I did comprehend your flawed response.



That is where you're wrong.

By calling you or your beliefs delusional, I'm merely pointing out that you are under the characterizations of delusions, that the beliefs you hold are fantasies.

Yet, if I call you a fool, I'm insulting you as a person in that I'm claiming you are blatantly being stupid.

Holding beliefs and being stupid are two different things, although one can easily follow the other or be the result.
No, calling someone delusional is just as insulting as calling them a fool...atheists are fully allowed to say things like "You're just living in a delusional imaginary fantasy" I say "atheists are fools" (with an explanation of why most atheistic arguments are foolish, irrational, illogical, etc..) and its not acceptable...

Saying what someone believes is a fantasy is just as insulting as saying they're a fool, your atheistic bias must be preventing you from seeing this, as its very obvious

"members are not allowed to be critical of atheism, only critical of theism, because we moderators are atheists and won't tolerate a fair and open debate of certain subjects, we have such an immense bias, we need to shape things in order to favor atheism"
- I fully agree.. :rolleyes:
Ofcourse you do, ofcourse you have no bias :rolleyes:


this is the typical atheistic argument...
The typical theist argument, well at least yours..
No my arguments always involve logic, rationality, provided with clear examples and clear descriptions

Ofcourse you do, ofcourse you have no bias :rolleyes:

lol right... you are the most biased person here


No my arguments always involve logic, rationality, provided with clear examples and clear descriptions

Sure, you just say it a bit too much.

lol right... you are the most biased person here

No I'm not, weren't you the one who made that post "What was he thinking?" intended to ridicule religion, it ofcourse was not locked, if I was biased then I would be like you, insisting on baised policies, but your bias surpasses everyone elses

No I'm not, weren't you the one who made that post "What was he thinking?" intended to ridicule religion, it ofcourse was not locked, if I was biased then I would be like you, insisting on baised policies, but your bias surpasses everyone elses

I resent that, that thread was not meant to ridicule religion.
You on the other hand see everything from your on perspective and you display no willingness to at least try to see it from other perspectives.
The fact that you have repeatedly addressed atheist with fools says it all :bugeye:

I resent that, that thread was not meant to ridicule religion.
You on the other hand see everything from your on perspective and you display no willingness to at least try to see it from other perspectives.
The fact that you have repeatedly addressed atheist with fools says it all :bugeye:

Why not, atheists are allowed to say theists are delusional fools living in an imaginary fantasy as much as they like...so why can't I say atheists are fools, then go on to describe how nearly every atheistic argument is flawed

Also your post was intended to ridicule religion, thats why you only said agnostics/atheists could respond

Why not, atheists are allowed to say theists are delusional fools living in an imaginary fantasy as much as they like...so why can't I say atheists are fools, then go on to describe how nearly every atheistic argument is flawed

First off, I NEVER said anything like that.
Secondly, you repeatedly referring to atheists by using the word 'fools' proves you are biased.


Also your post was intended to ridicule religion, thats why you only said agnostics/atheists could respond
That thread was not intended to ridicule religion, did you even read it ?
Also, I never said only atheist/agnostics could respond. You dreamt that up yourself :bugeye:
In fact, I urged them to discuss things from a theist point of view.
Are you so biased you only see what you want to see ?

This was my opening post:
To the atheists/agnostics: You all know i am an atheist myself but lets discuss this from a theists point of view.

I mean really... what was He thinking when He created man. God really screwed up on this one. Mankind is seriously screwing over the rest of His creation.
Is it all a divine experiment gone bad ? He must have known what we would end up doing to earth an everything on it.

Your head still up there? :bugeye:
Nah. It's just that my pseudoparallel, nonlinear, sidewise thinking modes generate these clever things to say that other people seem to miss.

It's a gift.

You are awfully quiet all of a sudden Vital.. :rolleyes:

VitalOne

I actually went and read the topics that you included in your complaint. And now a complaint of my own: I can't believe you're asking people to waste their time with this.

(1) Why are atheists fools? - You provide no actual argument in the topic post, and instead string together a bunch of childish tantrums about atheism. If you weren't deliberately tanking the context, perhaps I would be more kindly disposed toward your whining.

(2) Why aren't you atheists agnostic? - In the first place, it was an irrational topic to start with. To the other, it didn't produce much in the way of rational discussion. You even went out of your way to sidestep responses. In the end, you declared yourself the winner of the debate, and the topic was closed shortly thereafter. What are you complaining about? That you didn't get the "official" last word?

(3) God is in all things - You are correct that the topic offered no real basis for discussion or debate.

As to the topics you didn't appreciate as much:

(1) "Allah" the stone god! - This topic attempted to delve into the history of religion. There are, after all, considerations to religion that go beyond whether or not one believes.

(2) Jesus action figure - What, specifically is your question? I mean, shite, dude, it's a Jesus action figure. Yeah. Some people find it crass. Some people find it scripturally violative. Some, apparently, think it's really neat and want to be the first kid on the block to have one. Perhaps you have an opinion on this? Maybe not? I didn't see your post in that topic, but what do you think, VitalOne? Is a Jesus action figure a good idea?

(3) Faith is Christian .... - This is a bizarre topic, indeed. But most of Leo's are; we're used to it. The discussion, however, represents a disagreement among religious believers. Having discussed issues with Leo before, I was under the impression that he was a believer of some sort, to the point that I wonder why you're complaining about a sectarian fight. Are we supposed to believe that there is no diversity among believers?

(4) To my beautiful Atheists - Your complaint is? Oh, right ... the topic didn't kiss enough Christian ass.

(5) The problem with magical thinking .... - You're complaining about a topic that has gone almost a year without any new posts?

(6) Theists are more selfish than atheists - Perhaps the topic poster could have gone with "redemptionists", instead, but I don't see what your problem is. I mean, when "getting into heaven" is a powerful enough belief that it becomes a factor in national policy, yeah, we can wonder about the selfish aspect. What do I mean "national policy"? See post #1586886 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1586886), from "The 'homophobic' lie", and consider logic of one of the Bush administration's abstinence educators:
"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.

"Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"
Do you know why Christians don't like to "let" people be "separated from God"? (Hint: See Matthew 25 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4672755).)

(7) To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth? - An arguable, albeit provocative thesis. What, exactly, is the problem you have with that?

(8) Is belief in God just self-delusion? - Seriously, you're invoking a five year-old thread that hasn't seen action for over a year?

A question, VitalOne: Are you actually incapable of telling the difference?

And another: What is your basis for asserting that the difference between open and closed is atheist and theist?

Think of it this way: When you waste our time making such useless complaints, you diminish potential sympathy in future issues.

Seriously, VitalOne, that was a pretty dishonest complaint. To the one, I'm surprised you thought you could get away with it. To the other, maybe you didn't actually expect to.

VitalOne

I actually went and read the topics that you included in your complaint. And now a complaint of my own: I can't believe you're asking people to waste their time with this.

(1) Why are atheists fools? - You provide no actual argument in the topic post, and instead string together a bunch of childish tantrums about atheism. If you weren't deliberately tanking the context, perhaps I would be more kindly disposed toward your whining.
Yes I did, the entire thing was an argument, I asked atheists to explain themsleves, they refused and closed the topic (in other words they CANNOT explain themselves, so I guess they really are fools)


(2) Why aren't you atheists agnostic? - In the first place, it was an irrational topic to start with. To the other, it didn't produce much in the way of rational discussion. You even went out of your way to sidestep responses. In the end, you declared yourself the winner of the debate, and the topic was closed shortly thereafter. What are you complaining about? That you didn't get the "official" last word?
Irrational topic to start with? How so? Is it because you "oh well i just say so, its irrational to me, case closed", why isn't it considered a viable question? I never side stepped anything, I addressed all the arguments the entire time. Man, why do you have to make up lies when anyone can read the post for themselves?


(3) God is in all things - You are correct that the topic offered no real basis for discussion or debate.
Really? There's lots to debate and discuss on this topic



As to the topics you didn't appreciate as much:

(1) "Allah" the stone god! - This topic attempted to delve into the history of religion. There are, after all, considerations to religion that go beyond whether or not one believes.
Right, so how is this considered viable yet "Why are atheists not agnostic?" not viable? It was clearly intended to attack Islam, but thats ok in this forum, right?


(2) Jesus action figure - What, specifically is your question? I mean, shite, dude, it's a Jesus action figure. Yeah. Some people find it crass. Some people find it scripturally violative. Some, apparently, think it's really neat and want to be the first kid on the block to have one. Perhaps you have an opinion on this? Maybe not? I didn't see your post in that topic, but what do you think, VitalOne? Is a Jesus action figure a good idea?

ROFL...let me get this straight, you believe this post really had a lot more substance and more to discuss than "God is in all things"...must be that great atheistic bias at work


(3) Faith is Christian .... - This is a bizarre topic, indeed. But most of Leo's are; we're used to it. The discussion, however, represents a disagreement among religious believers. Having discussed issues with Leo before, I was under the impression that he was a believer of some sort, to the point that I wonder why you're complaining about a sectarian fight. Are we supposed to believe that there is no diversity among believers?
Ok, thats fine, again you're addressing the argument (typical atheist), WHY IS THIS POST ALLOWED YET "Why aren't you atheists agnostic?" NOT ALLOWED? TELL ME WHY AND STOP DODGING OUT OF THE ARGUMENT


(4) To my beautiful Atheists - Your complaint is? Oh, right ... the topic didn't kiss enough Christian ass.
The complaint is WHY IS THIS ALLOWED BUT the other posts not allowed...weren't you paying attention?

I personally have no problem with the post and have never requested that any post be locked


(5) The problem with magical thinking .... - You're complaining about a topic that has gone almost a year without any new posts?
What does a year ago have to do with this? Exactly, absolutely NOTHING, great argument, oh wait it isn't an argument, you simply dodged away again


(6) Theists are more selfish than atheists - Perhaps the topic poster could have gone with "redemptionists", instead, but I don't see what your problem is. I mean, when "getting into heaven" is a powerful enough belief that it becomes a factor in national policy, yeah, we can wonder about the selfish aspect. What do I mean "national policy"? See post #1586886 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1586886), from "The 'homophobic' lie", and consider logic of one of the Bush administration's abstinence educators:
"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.

"Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"
Do you know why Christians don't like to "let" people be "separated from God"? (Hint: See Matthew 25 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4672755).)
I don't have a problem with the post itself, I have a problem with THIS BEING ALLOWED BUT MY POST NOT BEING ALLOWED


(7) To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth? - An arguable, albeit provocative thesis. What, exactly, is the problem you have with that?
Right...WERE YOU PAYING ATTENTION? THE PROBLEM IS WHY IS THAT POST ALLOWED BUT "Why are atheists fools?" NOT ALLOWED? YOU DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM?


(8) Is belief in God just self-delusion? - Seriously, you're invoking a five year-old thread that hasn't seen action for over a year?
What does time have to do with this?


A question, VitalOne: Are you actually incapable of telling the difference?
Uhm...what difference? Oh yeah one is locked the other is left opened simply because of the moderator's immense bias, they can't even explain why it was locked, and others are open, and they never will


And another: What is your basis for asserting that the difference between open and closed is atheist and theist?

Think of it this way: When you waste our time making such useless complaints, you diminish potential sympathy in future issues.

Seriously, VitalOne, that was a pretty dishonest complaint. To the one, I'm surprised you thought you could get away with it. To the other, maybe you didn't actually expect to.
Pretty dishonest, why is it dishonest, PLEASE TELL ME WHY? Oh waits thats right you don't have to explain, you can just say "because I think it was, sounds dishonest, doesn't it?"

There's nothing dishonest about it, I'm simply asking why are those posts allowed and left unlocked but mine and others not allowed and locked?

You all are unable to answer to the question then dodge away from it completely

First off, I NEVER said anything like that.
Secondly, you repeatedly referring to atheists by using the word 'fools' proves you are biased.


That thread was not intended to ridicule religion, did you even read it ?
Also, I never said only atheist/agnostics could respond. You dreamt that up yourself :bugeye:
In fact, I urged them to discuss things from a theist point of view.
Are you so biased you only see what you want to see ?

This was my opening post:
Woah you must not know how to read your own post, right here you say the discussion is only for atheists/agnostics


To the atheists/agnostics: You all know i am an atheist myself but lets discuss this from a theists point of view.

The thread was aimed ONLY for agnostics/atheists to discuss...I wonder how you'll dodge away from this one :rolleyes: , when you directly target an audience you are saying this is only for that certain group and that others are invited to discuss

Then you go on to ridicule the idea of God

I mean really... what was He thinking when He created man. God really screwed up on this one. Mankind is seriously screwing over the rest of His creation.
Is it all a divine experiment gone bad ? He must have known what we would end up doing to earth an everything on it.
You really don't see how its intended to ridicule religion?

Woah you must not know how to read your own post, right here you say the discussion is only for atheists/agnostics



The thread was aimed ONLY for agnostics/atheists to discuss...I wonder how you'll dodge away from this one :rolleyes: , when you directly target an audience you are saying this is only for that certain group and that others are invited to discuss

Then you go on to ridicule the idea of God

You really don't see how its intended to ridicule religion?

you know one one the threads you linked was not about religion until YOU injected it in to it

Stop pretending that you have been treated unfairly VitalOne. You started the thread with the same fallacies that have been pointed out to you many times over. It's really not worth me pointing them out to you again.

Within the opening post you start with comments like "Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?"

You had no intention of real discussion, it was a rant. If you look in the Is Darwinism compatible with Religion? thread you will see Skinwalker warn ylooshi for insults like fool. This was from one post, you have got away with it many times. Stop pretending that you are being picked on. People have been very patient with you.

Someone answered your question (rant) and your first response was "There's no such thing as an agnostic atheist, though atheists might try to trick you into believing so (atheists love deceiving people to believe their propaganda)"

Don't pretend that you are after a real discussion.

Your last response was "Im going to declare myself the winner of this debate since everything I said in line with logic, atheists have lost the debate, its over"

By this stage the thread was going nowhere. I didn't lock it but I can understand why. You have no intention of real debate. What you are doing is closer to trolling.

http://home.maine.rr.com/mattyg/wambulance.jpg

Saying what someone believes is a fantasy is just as insulting as saying they're a fool, your atheistic bias must be preventing you from seeing this, as its very obvious

Only to someone who makes up their own definitions.

Woah you must not know how to read your own post, right here you say the discussion is only for atheists/agnostics

lol how stupid are you ?
I was urging the atheists and the agnostics to discuss this from a theist point of view. Do I have to remind the theists to discuss things from a theist point of view, especially in a thread like that ? I think not. :rolleyes:


The thread was aimed ONLY for agnostics/atheists to discuss...I wonder how you'll dodge away from this one :rolleyes: , when you directly target an audience you are saying this is only for that certain group and that others are invited to discuss

I was addressing the atheists/agnostics... oh whatever...nevermind.



Then you go on to ridicule the idea of God

You really don't see how its intended to ridicule religion?

You think I don't know what the intend was ? :bugeye:
It was an honest question and I wanted to discuss it.

Insult theism but don't insult atheism

Atheism is holy.

VitalOne,


What is it that you really want?

VitalOne,


What is it that you really want?

He wants the atheists to abandon their foolish ways and join his club.

He want the atheists to abandon their foolish ways and join his club.

Can we win prizes?

Can we win prizes?

Yeah, eternal life.. supposedly :rolleyes:

Yeah, eternal life.. supposedly :rolleyes:

I want a PS3, no deal.

I want a PS3, no deal.

PS3's are tools of the devil, so you will have to join that other club ;)

PS3's are tools of the devil, so you will have to join that other club ;)

Thats great because im already a member! :)

Thats great because im already a member! :)

:eek: I meant the satanists ;)

We have no club.. it's rather sad.. :bawl:

We have no club.. it's rather sad.. :bawl:

Lets make one, I want to be chairmen of sweets!

He wants the atheists to abandon their foolish ways and join his club.

The Jesus club? Blood drinking and virgin births? Eternal Hell fires and raising zombies from the dead?

That's a club that I'd like to join in time for Hallowe'en. One day membership then I'm out of there. Just my luck, however, I'd be hit by bus in a Holy state and have to spend eternity in Heaven.... and be bored stiff stuck at a table with Mother theresa, Gerry Falwell and assorted Popes....good Grief....eternity with Jesus ass kissers.

Stuck for eternity in Heaven with Jesus, the ultimate egomaniac

Christians: We love you Jesus.

Jesus: Louder!

Christians: We Love you Jesus!!!!

Jesus: I can't hear you!

Christians: WE LOVE YOU JESUS!!!!!

Only to someone who makes up their own definitions.
I didn't make up any definitions nor did I say the two words have the same meaning, I said its just as insulting :rolleyes:

lol how stupid are you ?
I was urging the atheists and the agnostics to discuss this from a theist point of view. Do I have to remind the theists to discuss things from a theist point of view, especially in a thread like that ? I think not. :rolleyes:
ROFL, good one, but I guess you're right when you say "To agnostics/atheists" clearly that meant the discussion was for everyone ROFL ahahaha, man these foolish atheists, how foolish can you become?


You think I don't know what the intend was ? :bugeye:
It was an honest question and I wanted to discuss it.
Yeah you do know, thats why you have make up some BS now in defensive

VitalOne,


What is it that you really want?
Equal treatment of atheistic and theistic posts, I bet if I posted "atheism is self-delusional", "To my beautiful Theists", "Faith is Atheism. Other Beliefs are Real" they would all get locked, just like my "Why aren't you atheists agnostic?" and "Why are atheists fools?" threads

Equal treatment of atheistic and theistic posts.
In your dreams. These are Sciforums as in science not religion. Religious belief has no place in the scientific method.

In your dreams. These are Sciforums as in science not religion. Religious belief has no place in the scientific method.

Yeah, I know science is naturalism, and naturalism is unfalsifiable

But this is specifically under the religion sub-forum, and has little do with religious belief, but more with logic and reasoning, why shouldn't there be equal treatment?

See you just confirmed what I said, atheists are bias and intentionally unequally treat posts to favor atheism

Naturalism is not unfalsifiable. Simply perform a verified miracle.

But this is specifically under the religion sub-forum, why shouldn't there be equal treatment?
Oh, I agree about the Religion subforum, I thought you meant in general.

I have never seen a miracle...ever.

Naturalism is not unfalsifiable. Simply perform a verified miracle.

No naturalism IS unfalsifiable, if someone walks on water or performs any miracle then they discover how it happened (someone uses their minds to make their body so light they could walk on water) then its no longer supernatural, but still a miracle

The "nature of gaps" and "nature-did-it" explanations make naturalism unfalsifiable, you can ALWAYS fill in the gaps with nature, "How did happen?" "By some unknown naturalistic cause, case closed, problem solved"

I didn't make up any definitions nor did I say the two words have the same meaning, I said its just as insulting :rolleyes:


ROFL, good one, but I guess you're right when you say "To agnostics/atheists" clearly that meant the discussion was for everyone ROFL ahahaha, man these foolish atheists, how foolish can you become?


Yeah you do know, thats why you have make up some BS now in defensive


You are really starting to piss me off with this bullshit :mad:
"To agnostics/atheists" signifies that the rest of the sentence is aimed at agnostics/atheists.
Then, below that, is the actual topic.

But you know all this don't you ? You are just being an asshole for the sake of it.

Yes I did, the entire thing was an argument, I asked atheists to explain themsleves, they refused and closed the topic (in other words they CANNOT explain themselves, so I guess they really are fools)

Okay, fine. I have a question for you: Why are you such a moron?

Or how about another: How did you get to be so stupid?

Now, on a more serious note: Aren't those questions just a bit severe?

Are they provocative? Do they aim to foster a good discussion between us?

Irrational topic to start with?

Yep.

In the first part your proposal is irrational, and intentionally provocative:

Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?[

And the topic post features one of the absolutely most ridiculous assertions in Sciforums history: "The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God ...."

You tried to sidestep various arguments by writing them for people, and the truth is that you didn't give those arguments honest consideration. Your attempt to discount those arguments looks more like the produce of your bitterness than any rational consideration.

Really? There's lots to debate and discuss on this topic

No, there isn't.

CC's topic post might make for an interesting testament about the brain and faith, but that discussion more appropriately belongs in Science & Society, and would be a technical discussion about psychology and treatment. And, frankly, given that this is Sciforums, that would be a dangerous discussion.

It was clearly intended to attack Islam, but thats ok in this forum, right?

It was inconvenient to blind-faith believers, I suppose. But subsequent discussion saved the discussion from any worry about its title. I'm surprised you object to a topic that actually saw its members providing information and discussing its context, meaning, and validity.

ROFL...let me get this straight, you believe this post really had a lot more substance and more to discuss than "God is in all things"...must be that great atheistic bias at work

I realize that for some believers, it's hard to accept that those outside the faith actually, genuinely worry about the faithful. But, yes, when the range of religious expression comes down to action figures, the infidels (of all stripes) actually do sort of look around and have a moment of communion. The little shrug and wink isn't just shared between atheists, but between non-Christians in general. And for that, the world owes Christians some gratitude. We get to have human moments together when we all look around at each other to make sure we're seeing what we think we're seeing. In this case, it's two words: "Action figures?"

So the question can be variously expressed: "What does this mean in the Christian context as we understand it?" Or, perhaps, "We're supposed to take these people seriously?"

I mean, a Jesus action figure actually raises a doctrinal question, according to some. And some of that sum of some are Christians. So, yes, there's a valid question to be considered.

[/font]

Oh, calm down, for heaven's sake.

Leo's rambling topics, while often strange, don't generally seek to pick fights. They may be obscure, but they have a point. I don't see why the topic should be closed in the first place. You do, inasmuch as you assert some sort of comparison in demanding a justification for not closing it.

What is that comparison? Considering the criteria laid out in your topic post, I fail to see how the topic either criticizes or ridicules theism.

[quote][color=black]The complaint is WHY IS THIS ALLOWED BUT the other posts not allowed...weren't you paying attention?

I personally have no problem with the post and have never requested that any post be locked

If you have no problem, then why raise the comparison? If we agree there's no problem, then why should it have been closed? And I know you never said it should be closed, but that's the question implicit in the comparison, that one should be closed or the other opened.

I don't have a problem with the post itself, I have a problem with THIS BEING ALLOWED BUT MY POST NOT BEING ALLOWED

You don't see a problem that should have closed that topic? Then why do you include it? Why are you wasting our time when there's no grounds for comparison?

Right...WERE YOU PAYING ATTENTION? THE PROBLEM IS WHY IS THAT POST ALLOWED BUT "Why are atheists fools?" NOT ALLOWED? YOU DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM?

I don't see what's so hard to understand about the idea that since you put these topics up for comparison, one might expect some sense of comparison between them.

The topic seeks to criticize and demean based on clearly fallacious and presumptuous grounds. One of the things that strikes me, and you're a perfect candidate to answer for the practice, is why so many of our theistic posters, when inquiring about the reasons or justifications for an "atheistic" argument, inquire about an "argument" that nobody accepts. See, typically, the argument put forth for inquiry is one invented by someone who is bitter that they do not grasp the actual argument they're asking about. That is more likely the argument people are prepared to answer for, the real one.

Consider two possible approaches to the same obscure notion: if I compare my vision of how the world should be and the one that I perceive my Christian neighbors advocating, there are several routes by which certain harm, such as sexual abuse, will be statistically higher under their outlook. Now then, would it be more appropriate to ask if they understand these processes, and see this potential result, and how they feel about it, or should I ask them why they're rape advocates? In the case of the latter, wouldn't you say I was out looking for a fight?

You could easily have inquired about the proposition that neutrality seems the more responsible and appropriate position, but you chose instead to pick a fight:

• So why are you atheists so foolish, yet try to appear smarter and superior to everyone else? Almost every atheistic argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable

What does time have to do with this?

Five years ago this was a different place. Five years ago the theists could at least put up an argument. Don't get me wrong, I realize the most evangelical among theists are already out of material for the debate, and it must suck. But time is just one of several factors you don't seem to account for in picking out that particular topic. For instance, it wouldn't have come up except for the fact that someone decided to split a certain hair. (Note that the lead theistic advocates don't whine and complain about the topic's existence; in fact, they seem to understand even its context. Perhaps there is more taking place in that topic than you would recognize from five years away.

Uhm...what difference? Oh yeah one is locked the other is left opened simply because of the moderator's immense bias, they can't even explain why it was locked, and others are open, and they never will

Seriously? That's your response?

Pretty dishonest, why is it dishonest, PLEASE TELL ME WHY? Oh waits thats right you don't have to explain, you can just say "because I think it was, sounds dishonest, doesn't it?"

No matter how many times I explain it to you, if you don't pay attention, you'll never know.

But you are right about one thing. The topic about self-delusion really was embarrassing. I spotted two hideous typos that make me look absolutely stupid.

There's nothing dishonest about it, I'm simply asking why are those posts allowed and left unlocked but mine and others not allowed and locked?

If you don't accept the reasons offered, that's your problem. If you think those reasons are unfairly applied, demonstrate the comparison. See, that's what I thought you were trying to do, even as poorly as it seems you have.

Okay, you offered three topics that were closed:

(1) God is in all things - There's more to it than its mere existence. There is a history involved.

(2) Why are atheists fools? - The topic was intended to pick a fight. Don't pretend otherwise. When the title, first and last lines go spit, demand, swing, you're looking to pick a fight. What happens in between the first and last lines only chooses the weapons, so to speak.

(3) Why aren't you atheists agnostic - Between the topic and its sixty-seven responses, you managed to make yourself look silly several times before declaring yourself the winner. As the topic was falling apart from the outset, it seems to me that was a fine time to end it. I can't speak for the moderator who locked it, but I would have done the same. There's no specific reason they should wait for a riot to start before ending a topic run afoul.

You all are unable to answer to the question then dodge away from it completely

That you refuse to accept any explanations doesn't mean you're not answered.

I'll tell you theists how to convert people.

Be friendly, kind and helpful
hard working and good natured.
Show your happiness and love of life.

People will then wonder how you became like that
and want to be like you.

The current tactic of being self righteous, politically motivated,
greedy, opinionated, aggressive and multi-prejudiced
isn't working for you.
Try a new approach.

I'll tell you theists how to convert people.

Be friendly, kind and helpful
hard working and good natured.
Show your happiness and love of life.

People will then wonder how you became like that
and want to be like you.

The current tactic of being self righteous, politically motivated,
greedy, opinionated, aggressive and multi-prejudiced
isn't working for you.
Try a new approach.

I second that :thumbsup:

Well said Chris but throw in... develop a sense of humour.
Deadset, if I see an evangelistic Christian with a sense of humour I'll consider that a bona fide miracle and I'll convert on the spot.

Okay, fine. I have a question for you: Why are you such a moron?

Or how about another: How did you get to be so stupid?

Now, on a more serious note: Aren't those questions just a bit severe?

Are they provocative? Do they aim to foster a good discussion between us?

Well if you explained how or why, yeah they would


Yep.

In the first part your proposal is irrational, and intentionally provocative:

Since the existence of God is unverifiable, meaning there's no way of knowing if it's actually true or false, why aren't you agnostic? Why have you chosen an irrational, illogical, foolish conclusion as opposed to the rational standpoint?[
Right...so whats the difference between that and saying someone has "magical thinking", oh yeah thats right, that statement "magical thinking" favors atheism, so its ok, right?


And the topic post features one of the absolutely most ridiculous assertions in Sciforums history: "The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God ...."

You tried to sidestep various arguments by writing them for people, and the truth is that you didn't give those arguments honest consideration. Your attempt to discount those arguments looks more like the produce of your bitterness than any rational consideration.
Uhm can you explain why its ridiculous? Oh wait you don't have to, you're an atheist and "I just say it is, it sounds so"

I NEVER side stepped anything, stop making BS up


No, there isn't.

CC's topic post might make for an interesting testament about the brain and faith, but that discussion more appropriately belongs in Science & Society, and would be a technical discussion about psychology and treatment. And, frankly, given that this is Sciforums, that would be a dangerous discussion.
No it definitely has more to discuss than a Jesus action-figure, there's innumerable things you can discuss about a post


It was inconvenient to blind-faith believers, I suppose. But subsequent discussion saved the discussion from any worry about its title. I'm surprised you object to a topic that actually saw its members providing information and discussing its context, meaning, and validity.
Oh I get it, so its ok as long as it attacks theism? Thanks for proving my point, my post "Why aren't atheists agnostics?" points out inconvient logical fallacies, why shouldn't it be allowed?


I realize that for some believers, it's hard to accept that those outside the faith actually, genuinely worry about the faithful. But, yes, when the range of religious expression comes down to action figures, the infidels (of all stripes) actually do sort of look around and have a moment of communion. The little shrug and wink isn't just shared between atheists, but between non-Christians in general. And for that, the world owes Christians some gratitude. We get to have human moments together when we all look around at each other to make sure we're seeing what we think we're seeing. In this case, it's two words: "Action figures?"

So the question can be variously expressed: "What does this mean in the Christian context as we understand it?" Or, perhaps, "We're supposed to take these people seriously?"

I mean, a Jesus action figure actually raises a doctrinal question, according to some. And some of that sum of some are Christians. So, yes, there's a valid question to be considered.
ROFL...great one, you managed to find lots of things you could potentially discuss about a "Jesus action figure" yet cannot find things you can discuss about "God is in all things", clearly your bias is seeping out of your atheistic skull

Its funny you mention "its hard to accept for some believers" already demonstrating your atheistic bias


Oh, calm down, for heaven's sake.

Leo's rambling topics, while often strange, don't generally seek to pick fights. They may be obscure, but they have a point. I don't see why the topic should be closed in the first place. You do, inasmuch as you assert some sort of comparison in demanding a justification for not closing it.

What is that comparison? Considering the criteria laid out in your topic post, I fail to see how the topic either criticizes or ridicules theism.
Uhm...open up your thick atheistic skull for one moment...

The thread CLEARLY was intended to attack theism, CLEARLY if you don't see that then you only further demonstrate your bias


If you have no problem, then why raise the comparison? If we agree there's no problem, then why should it have been closed? And I know you never said it should be closed, but that's the question implicit in the comparison, that one should be closed or the other opened.
I raise the comparison to show that posts vainly critical of theism are openely allowed, the debate is allowed to continue, but posts critical of atheism aren't...thats why, I thought it was obvious, I guess not to the delusional atheist living in a fantasy world


You don't see a problem that should have closed that topic? Then why do you include it? Why are you wasting our time when there's no grounds for comparison?
Uhm, pay attention, I said personally I have no problem with it, but I also said if my post was locked then those others should've been too, the fact that mine is locked and the others are left open is what demonstrates the great atheistic bias


I don't see what's so hard to understand about the idea that since you put these topics up for comparison, one might expect some sense of comparison between them.

The topic seeks to criticize and demean based on clearly fallacious and presumptuous grounds. One of the things that strikes me, and you're a perfect candidate to answer for the practice, is why so many of our theistic posters, when inquiring about the reasons or justifications for an "atheistic" argument, inquire about an "argument" that nobody accepts. See, typically, the argument put forth for inquiry is one invented by someone who is bitter that they do not grasp the actual argument they're asking about. That is more likely the argument people are prepared to answer for, the real one.

Consider two possible approaches to the same obscure notion: if I compare my vision of how the world should be and the one that I perceive my Christian neighbors advocating, there are several routes by which certain harm, such as sexual abuse, will be statistically higher under their outlook. Now then, would it be more appropriate to ask if they understand these processes, and see this potential result, and how they feel about it, or should I ask them why they're rape advocates? In the case of the latter, wouldn't you say I was out looking for a fight?
Uhm...ok again DODGING OUT OF THE ARGUMENT, why WAS THAT POST LOCKED BUT THE OTHERS PICKING FIGHTS WITH THEISTS NOT LOCKED? WHY? TELL ME WHY? THATS THE ARGUMENT? IS THIS CLEAR OR ARE YOU GOING TO DODGE OUT OF IT TELL ME WHY SAYING "you have magical thinking" or "you value hope more than truth" ARE NOT CONSIDERED FALLCIOUS PRESUMPTIOUS GROUNDS? WHY? TELL ME WHY? OR PLEASE STFU AND STOP GOING OUT OFFTOPIC


You could easily have inquired about the proposition that neutrality seems the more responsible and appropriate position, but you chose instead to pick a fight:

• So why are you atheists so foolish, yet try to appear smarter and superior to everyone else? Almost every atheistic argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable
Right...and assuming theists have "magical thinking" are "self-delusional" "live in an imaginary fantasy" "more selfish than atheists" "value hope more than truth" "Faith is Christian. Other Religions are Real" are NOT intended to pick fights, woah, continue living in your imaginary world if you desire so


Five years ago this was a different place. Five years ago the theists could at least put up an argument. Don't get me wrong, I realize the most evangelical among theists are already out of material for the debate, and it must suck. But time is just one of several factors you don't seem to account for in picking out that particular topic. For instance, it wouldn't have come up except for the fact that someone decided to split a certain hair. (Note that the lead theistic advocates don't whine and complain about the topic's existence; in fact, they seem to understand even its context. Perhaps there is more taking place in that topic than you would recognize from five years away.
NOTHING BESIDES ONE POST LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE FOR...ALL OTHERS ARE FROM 2006 OR 2007

I put up a better argument than you ever can or will, thats why you said saying a FSM has nothing to do with the existence of God is ridiculous, some how you believe "if FSM doesn't exist, then God, with innumerably different attributes, properties, and characteristics must also not exist" (non-sequitur illogical argument)


Seriously? That's your response?
Yeah, NO moderator has explained why other topics picking fights with theists are allowed...THEY NEVER HAVE NOR WILL THEY


But you are right about one thing. The topic about self-delusion really was embarrassing. I spotted two hideous typos that make me look absolutely stupid.

If you don't accept the reasons offered, that's your problem. If you think those reasons are unfairly applied, demonstrate the comparison. See, that's what I thought you were trying to do, even as poorly as it seems you have.

Okay, you offered three topics that were closed:

(1) God is in all things - There's more to it than its mere existence. There is a history involved.

(2) Why are atheists fools? - The topic was intended to pick a fight. Don't pretend otherwise. When the title, first and last lines go spit, demand, swing, you're looking to pick a fight. What happens in between the first and last lines only chooses the weapons, so to speak.

(3) Why aren't you atheists agnostic - Between the topic and its sixty-seven responses, you managed to make yourself look silly several times before declaring yourself the winner. As the topic was falling apart from the outset, it seems to me that was a fine time to end it. I can't speak for the moderator who locked it, but I would have done the same. There's no specific reason they should wait for a riot to start before ending a topic run afoul.
Ok, listen carefully now that you managed to again DODGE OUT OF THE ARGUMENT, why were those topics locked but not these ALSO INTENDED TO PICK FIGHTS and ALSO FALLING APART FULLY ALLOWED AND LEFT UN-LOCKED:
"Faith is Christian. Other religions are real" - clearly intended to pick a fight with Christians, yet fully allowed
"allah" the stone god! - Clearly intended to pick a fight with Muslims, but fully allowed
"To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?" - Clearly intended to pick a fight with theists, yet fully allowed
"theists are more selfish than atheists" - Clearly intended to pick a figh with theists yet fully allowed
"The problem with magical thinking, poor education, and poor communication" - Clearly intended to pick a fight, yet fully allowed

All you managed to do is PROVE MY OWN POINT, my topics against atheism are locked for picking a fight and falling apart, yet topics favoring atheism are not locked but promoted, glorified, and praised, EVEN THOUGH THEY ALSO PICK A FIGHT AND ALSO FALL APART, now what...explain why this is happened? WHY?


That you refuse to accept any explanations doesn't mean you're not answered.
I don't refuse to accept the explanations, NO explanation was given why other topics favoring atheism which were picking fights with theists, falling apart, etc...WERE NOT LOCKED, the moderators can't explain why nor will they because they know the real reason is simply because they are filled with hatred and bias, they let their immense bias gain control of them

I'll tell you theists how to convert people.

Be friendly, kind and helpful
hard working and good natured.
Show your happiness and love of life.

People will then wonder how you became like that
and want to be like you.

The current tactic of being self righteous, politically motivated,
greedy, opinionated, aggressive and multi-prejudiced
isn't working for you.
Try a new approach.

No one's trying to convert anyone :rolleyes: , just debating

You are really starting to piss me off with this bullshit :mad:
"To agnostics/atheists" signifies that the rest of the sentence is aimed at agnostics/atheists.
Then, below that, is the actual topic.

But you know all this don't you ? You are just being an asshole for the sake of it.
No, saying "To agnostics/atheists....lets discuss" signifies that the entire thread is aimed ONLY for agnostics/atheists otherwise you wouldn't have had that opening line...if I made a post "To theists/deists...let's discuss" what would you think of that? Would that be considered open to everyone?

No one's trying to convert anyone :rolleyes: , just debating

for it to be debating you cannot just act if you as if the other person or persons points are invalid. which you do

You're not listening VitalOne.

I don't think it was the subject matter that got the thread locked, it was your behavior. You are welcome to start many threads attacking atheism if you want. However this is a forum where there are some standards applied so that the discussions stay civil, mature with at least some point to them. You started a thread with a post that was offensive and asked the same questions that many have already answered for you. Then you wouldn’t listen to anyone in the thread and declared yourself the winner! The thread was done.

You are not the only theist posting in the religious forum. Other posters attack atheism all the time with no problem but they are capable of rational debate. From your behavior lately it appears that you are not.

You're not listening VitalOne.

I don't think it was the subject matter that got the thread locked, it was your behavior. You are welcome to start many threads attacking atheism if you want. However this is a forum where there are some standards applied so that the discussions stay civil, mature with at least some point to them. You started a thread with a post that was offensive and asked the same questions that many have already answered for you. Then you wouldn’t listen to anyone in the thread and declared yourself the winner! The thread was done.

You are not the only theist posting in the religious forum. Other posters attack atheism all the time with no problem but they are capable of rational debate. From your behavior lately it appears that you are not.
What are you talking about? Any examples of when I didn't listen or didn't address an argument made? When did they answer and when did I not reply?

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you reply to people. You were not actually taking part in a discussion. You asked an offensive question that has already been answered for you and then you discarded any answer given as an atheist tactic or a dodge. You already knew exactly what answers you were going to get because you have had almost the same discussion here many times. There was no point to the thread in the beginning and it got more stupid as it went. I always get a laugh when I see someone declare themselves the winner of a thread though.

Remember your first response was "There's no such thing as an agnostic atheist, though atheists might try to trick you into believing so (atheists love deceiving people to believe their propaganda)" Do you think that is mature discussion?

Imagine having a discussion with someone who puts their hands over their ears and screams 'la la la la' while you are talking.

It's got nothing to do with whether or not you reply to people. You were not actually taking part in a discussion. You asked an offensive question that has already been answered for you and then you discarded any answer given as an atheist tactic or a dodge. You already knew exactly what answers you were going to get because you have had almost the same discussion here many times. There was no point to the thread in the beginning and it got more stupid as it went. I always get a laugh when I see someone declare themselves the winner of a thread though.

Remember your first response was "There's no such thing as an agnostic atheist, though atheists might try to trick you into believing so (atheists love deceiving people to believe their propaganda)" Do you think that is mature discussion?

Imagine having a discussion with someone who puts their hands over their ears and screams 'la la la la' while you are talking.
Uhm....I explained why that was true, I didn't just state it blindly, so you agree with me, I addressed all arguments and responded

Your first paragraph is just a meaningless subjective rant, the fact that I know many common atheistic tactics shouldn't have anything to do with it, what if I said atheists shouldn't be able to post because they know what theists would say? Thats not fair, thereby confirming what I said, you want an unfair closed debate and not a fair and open debate

If an atheist had posted something like "Saying you can't prove God doesn't exist isn't logical its a typical theistic tactic, they use magical thinking and are deluded into believing fantasy" would you have been ok with it? Don't lie.

Uhm....I explained why that was true, I didn't just state it blindly, so you agree with me, I addressed all arguments and responded:wallbang:


Your first paragraph is just a meaningless subjective rant, the fact that I know many common atheistic tactics shouldn't have anything to do with it, Replying to a sound argument with "typical foolish atheist tactic" is not really responding. If you don't want to hear these "tactics" don't ask questions that lead to them.

Atheists often employ logic and reason. I guess you could call this a tactic.


what if I said atheists shouldn't be able to post because they know what theists would say? Thats not fair, thereby confirming what I said, you want an unfair closed debate and a fair and open debateNice work cherry picking one sentence out of my post. That reason alone was not why the thread was locked and you know it.


If an atheist had posted something like "Saying you can't prove God doesn't exist isn't logical its a typical theistic tactic, they use magical thinking and are deluded" would you have been ok with it? Don't lie.What does that have to do with starting a thread with an offensive post, refusing to listen to anyone and then declaring yourself the winner while the thread was going nowhere. Get over it VitalOne.

:wallbang:

Replying to a sound argument with "typical foolish atheist tactic" is not really responding. If you don't want to hear these "tactics" don't ask questions that lead to them.

Atheists often employ logic and reason. I guess you could call this a tactic.
What are you talking about? I responded with that and also with an argument explaining why it was foolish...just like how atheists are allowed to say "this is a delusional fantasy I don't believe in magic" why can't I say "this is a typical foolish atheistic tactic" and explain why? Can you point where I never explained why?


Nice work cherry picking one sentence out of my post. That reason alone was not why the thread was locked and you know it.
Well why did you state that it was? Its not cherry-picking, just addressing your own statements, I guess you didn't want to me too :rolleyes: . but then you criticize me for supposedly not addressing arguments...


What does that have to do with starting a thread with an offensive post, refusing to listen to anyone and then declaring yourself the winner while the thread was going nowhere. Get over it VitalOne.
I'll tell you what it has to do with it...

- Athests are allowed to start offensive threads
- Atheists are allowed to say equally insulting things
- Athiests posts hardly ever get locked (maybe once in a 1000 posts)

I never refused to listen to anyone, in the end snake refus just kept saying "God is a fantasy" without any explanation (I'm sure you have no problem with him not explaining, right?) so I declared myself the winner since no one could actually explain themselves anymore

Sciforums should add to their policy "members are not allowed to be critical of atheism, only critical of theism, because we moderators are atheists and won't tolerate a fair and open debate of certain subjects, we have such an immense bias, we need to shape things in order to favor atheism"...

Vital,

You act like a dick most of the time and your intention of being a dick is quite clear in all the threads that have been closed. Your negative reputation and constant reinforcement of it is quite frankly your own doing and your own fault.

Beyond this, I don't think anybody else should waste time in this thread giving your whining any more attention.

Agreed.

:wallbang:

:wallbang:

:wallbang:

Vital,

You act like a dick most of the time and your intention of being a dick is quite clear in all the threads that have been closed. Your negative reputation and constant reinforcement of it is quite frankly your own doing and your own fault.

Beyond this, I don't think anybody else should waste time in this thread giving your whining any more attention.

i second that

Equal treatment of atheistic and theistic posts

Why? Why should there be equal treatment of atheistic and theistic posts?

Are they of equal worth?

Are they of equal worth?

yes, both are worthless.

yes, both are worthless.

i'm going to agree with you its all metaphysical bs to my point of view

So basically you guys can't answer the question :rolleyes:, Crunchy Cat and all other atheists can act like a dick all they want like they always do, moderators have no problem with this, because they favor atheism :rolleyes:

Thanks for the reconfirmation, you guys all admitted you're filled with atheistic bias, thanks

So basically you guys can't answer the question :rolleyes:, Crunchy Cat can act like a dick all he wants like he always does, atheists have problem, because he favors atheism :rolleyes:

Thanks for the reconfirmation, you guys all admitted you're filled with atheistic bias, thanks

Does that mean you are the winner, AGAIN?

Does that mean you are the winner, AGAIN?

Well yeah if no one is exlpaining themselves (besides me), all they can say now is "get over it" and "we don't care", they are fully aware of their own atheistic bias and know why the threads were really locked

If I had posted "atheism is self-delusional", "To my beautiful Theists", "Faith is Atheism. Other Beliefs are Real", "The problem with ignorance, atheism, incredulity", "atheists selfish theists not" they would all get locked, just like my "Why aren't you atheists agnostic?" and "Why are atheists fools?" threads

Vital One, I have my hat off to you.
You could easily be on some God is great site, shaking hands with the Brothers but no, you get into the mix, shake it up, put your money where your mouth is.
I'll mostly disagree with you but hats off where due!
You've got strength of character.

No, saying "To agnostics/atheists....lets discuss" signifies that the entire thread is aimed ONLY for agnostics/atheists otherwise you wouldn't have had that opening line...if I made a post "To theists/deists...let's discuss" what would you think of that? Would that be considered open to everyone?

Moron, have it your way and believe whatever the fuck it is you want to believe.

:wallbang:

Replying to a sound argument with "typical foolish atheist tactic" is not really responding. If you don't want to hear these "tactics" don't ask questions that lead to them.

Atheists often employ logic and reason. I guess you could call this a tactic.

Nice work cherry picking one sentence out of my post. That reason alone was not why the thread was locked and you know it.

What does that have to do with starting a thread with an offensive post, refusing to listen to anyone and then declaring yourself the winner while the thread was going nowhere. Get over it VitalOne.

Lol you might as well stop trying, Vital lives in his own little world.

Well if you explained how or why, yeah they would

Yet you still would miss the point.

Right...so whats the difference between that and saying someone has "magical thinking", oh yeah thats right, that statement "magical thinking" favors atheism, so its ok, right?

Just because you disparage "magical thinking" specifically does not bind anyone else to your definitions. When you wish to understand what someone else is saying, you cannot do so by defining terms according to your own outlook.

Unfortunately, the source article for that year-old discussion is lost, but I can say that, as one who actually accepts magical thinking, I have no problem with the topic title. The combination of superstition (e.g., magical thinking), poor education, and poor communication is deadly among humans. And there's nothing particularly offensive about the discussion itself; it would seem you object based on your own definition of "magical thinking", and you're welcome to create a list of words that you think people shouldn't use, but don't expect anyone to pay any more attention to that list than the time it takes to laugh it off.

Uhm can you explain why its ridiculous? Oh wait you don't have to, you're an atheist and "I just say it is, it sounds so"

To claim reasonable analogies inapplicable simply because you say so is a sad, cheap joke. Let's take a look at the first part of that poorly-writ paragraph:

For those of you who say "Well I don't believe in Zeus, FSM, or [any other thing you make up to make yourself feel better and increase your faith in atheism]" this argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or non-existence of these things have nothing to do with the existence of God ....

Now let's take a look at the common elements 'twixt Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and IHVH: except for the baseless assertion that any of these things exist, there is no suggestion that they exist. The flip side is easy enough to see: whether or not we have a word for it, regardless of whether we can agree on the word for it, rain falls. That is, water does fall from the sky from time to time.

This is not true of gods. Barring the suggestion that they exist, there is no suggestion that they exist. Barring the suggestion that rain exists, you will still get wet walking around outside on certain days.

Thus, what you are asserting, essentially, is--

For those of you who say, "Well, I don't believe in something that is asserted to exist yet cannot be shown to exist, and neither can its effects be observed, measured, or said to exist," you're being 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or nonexistence of things asserted to exist that cannot be shown to exist has nothing to do with assertions that things exist which cannot be shown to exist.

In other words, the fact that (A) does cannot be shown to exist has nothing to do with the question of whether or not (A) exists.

The second part of that paragraph, by the way--

if someone is talking about whether or not the theory of relativity for instance was true and somone kept saying "Yeah well I don't believe in the geocentric theory, or the aether or any other completely unrelated theory that people don't believe in now" it wouldn't make any logical sense, it would just be a clever way of avoiding the actual argument (which is the theory of relativity)

--makes no sense at all. In fact, the only way I can make it make sense is if I presuppose the existence of God. And even then, it's a weak argument for focusing on unrelated issues. That you think "other gods" are false while "God" is true would be your own damn problem.

I NEVER side stepped anything, stop making BS up

You sidestepped from the beginning. Instead of dealing with the real question, you tried to write the opposing argument in order to make it something you could put down.

No it definitely has more to discuss than a Jesus action-figure, there's innumerable things you can discuss about a post

Says you. And, as we all know, you know. Right?

Oh I get it, so its ok as long as it attacks theism? Thanks for proving my point, my post "Why aren't atheists agnostics?" points out inconvient logical fallacies, why shouldn't it be allowed?

Are you smearing all theists as blind-faith believers?

Oh, and the so-called logical fallacies ... you constructed them fallaciously. I realize these words are wasted. The only way you haven't ignored what I've written is that you had to look at it in order to put quote tags around it.

But if you actually pay attention to one thing, let it be this: You are, by far, more abusive of theists and theism by your conduct than any of the topics you've complained about.

ROFL...great one, you managed to find lots of things you could potentially discuss about a "Jesus action figure" yet cannot find things you can discuss about "God is in all things", clearly your bias is seeping out of your atheistic skull

Its funny you mention "its hard to accept for some believers" already demonstrating your atheistic bias

Oh, you silly bigot.

I think I actually pity you.

Uhm...open up your thick atheistic skull for one moment...

The thread CLEARLY was intended to attack theism, CLEARLY if you don't see that then you only further demonstrate your bias

Um, hello? Are you serious?

No. Seriously. Are you freaking serious?

I raise the comparison to show that posts vainly critical of theism are openely allowed, the debate is allowed to continue, but posts critical of atheism aren't...thats why, I thought it was obvious, I guess not to the delusional atheist living in a fantasy world

What the hell are you going on about? Criticizing atheism is perfectly acceptable.

Uhm, pay attention, I said personally I have no problem with it, but I also said if my post was locked then those others should've been too, the fact that mine is locked and the others are left open is what demonstrates the great atheistic bias

Is English a second language to you?

Uhm...ok again DODGING OUT OF THE ARGUMENT, why WAS THAT POST LOCKED BUT THE OTHERS PICKING FIGHTS WITH THEISTS NOT LOCKED? WHY? TELL ME WHY? THATS THE ARGUMENT? IS THIS CLEAR OR ARE YOU GOING TO DODGE OUT OF IT TELL ME WHY SAYING "you have magical thinking" or "you value hope more than truth" ARE NOT CONSIDERED FALLCIOUS PRESUMPTIOUS GROUNDS? WHY? TELL ME WHY? OR PLEASE STFU AND STOP GOING OUT OFFTOPIC

Quit your screaming and crying.

Again, is English a second language to you?

In the meantime:

• Religious belief inherently includes magical beliefs. Just because you don't want to call it that doesn't mean it isn't true.

• Certain religions do value hope more than truth; Christianity, for instance, is an example. I don't see what's so damned offensive about asking why.

Look, dude, seriously ... if English is your second language, make that known now.

Right...and assuming theists have "magical thinking" are "self-delusional" "live in an imaginary fantasy" "more selfish than atheists" "value hope more than truth" "Faith is Christian. Other Religions are Real" are NOT intended to pick fights, woah, continue living in your imaginary world if you desire so

Until you show some sign that you're actually reading and paying attention to the posts you're responding to, you're going to continue to look silly.

Magical thinking? Hope over truth? Why would the faithful be ashamed of such things? Is it because it's an atheist saying it? Because normally, believers seem proud of these points.

Self-delusional? There's a history to that particular topic, and if you'd bothered to read beyond the title, you would have noticed that.

NOTHING BESIDES ONE POST LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE FOR...ALL OTHERS ARE FROM 2006 OR 2007

Let's check that accusation. Everyone can play along at home:

Is belief in god just self-delusion? (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5200)
(Post #) Date

(1) 1.02.2002
(2) 1.02.2002
(3) 1.02.2002
(4) 1.02.2002
(5) 1.02.2002
(6) 1.02.2002
(7) 1.03.2002
(8) 1.03.2002
(9) 1.03.2002
(10) 1.03.2002
(11) 1.03.2002
(12) 1.03.2002
(13) 1.03.2002
(14) 1.03.2002
(15) 1.03.2002
(16) 1.03.2002
(17) 1.03.2002
(18) 1.03.2002
(19) 1.03.2002
(20) 1.03.2002 ...

... (101) 1.15.2002 ...

... (107) 1.18.2002
(108) 8.17.2005
(109) 8.21.2005
(110) 3.12.2006 ...

... (127) 3.17.2006

I would suggest that you follow the discussion. You asked what time had to do with anything. I answered. Right now I'm wondering if you really thought you could get away with a lie, or if you simply confused yourself. So, to revisit the conversation:

T: (8) Is belief in God just self-delusion? - Seriously, you're invoking a five year-old thread that hasn't seen action for over a year?

V: What does time have to do with this?

T: Five years ago this was a different place ....

V: NOTHING BESIDES ONE POST LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE FOR...ALL OTHERS ARE FROM 2006 OR 2007

Okay, now work with me here, please. Of 127 posts in that topic, 107 are from over five years ago. Approximately 84.25% of the topic is over five years old. And I am ineffably confident that, mathematically 107 > 1.

I put up a better argument than you ever can or will, thats why you said saying a FSM has nothing to do with the existence of God is ridiculous, some how you believe "if FSM doesn't exist, then God, with innumerably different attributes, properties, and characteristics must also not exist" (non-sequitur illogical argument)

A breakthrough! You actually posited a theory. Good for you.

Unfortunately, you're still wrong. To reiterate from above:

For those of you who say, "Well, I don't believe in something that is asserted to exist yet cannot be shown to exist, and neither can its effects be observed, measured, or said to exist," you're being 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. The existence or nonexistence of things asserted to exist that cannot be shown to exist has nothing to do with assertions that things exist which cannot be shown to exist.

In other words, the fact that (A) does cannot be shown to exist has nothing to do with the question of whether or not (A) exists.

The common attributes between any one God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are:

(A) They cannot be shown to exist
(B) Except for the assertion of existence, there is nothing to suggest that they exist

In attempting to shift the burden of proof, you've committed a basic fallacy.

Yeah, NO moderator has explained why other topics picking fights with theists are allowed...THEY NEVER HAVE NOR WILL THEY

I think what you're actually having a hissy-fit about is that the moderators don't share your outlook exactly. Look at the spectacle you've made of yourself here. You're already set in your belief, and it would appear that you refuse to consider anything but self-affirmation.

Ok, listen carefully now that you managed to again DODGE OUT OF THE ARGUMENT, why were those topics locked but not these ALSO INTENDED TO PICK FIGHTS and ALSO FALLING APART FULLY ALLOWED AND LEFT UN-LOCKED

The answer is because you are oversensitive and dishonest.

Got it? Good.

All you managed to do is PROVE MY OWN POINT, my topics against atheism are locked for picking a fight and falling apart, yet topics favoring atheism are not locked but promoted, glorified, and praised, EVEN THOUGH THEY ALSO PICK A FIGHT AND ALSO FALL APART, now what...explain why this is happened? WHY?

Do you understand that not everybody in the world sees things the way you do?

Some topics just have greater ideological value. Some difficult topics are redeemed by the members who post in them; some good topics end up trashed by second-rate hatemongers or delusional evangelists mucking things up. Some topics are doomed from conception because there is a greater history than your pinprick-narrow outlook allows you to understand. The fact that you must pretend life is as conveniently simplistic as your argument demands is telling.

I don't refuse to accept the explanations, NO explanation was given why other topics favoring atheism which were picking fights with theists, falling apart, etc...WERE NOT LOCKED, the moderators can't explain why nor will they because they know the real reason is simply because they are filled with hatred and bias, they let their immense bias gain control of them

Here, I'll ask a provocative question: Are all theists dishonest?

Don't worry. I already know the answer to that one.

• • •

Okay, look, VitalOne ... provocateur routines really are useless. Stop with your hate campaign against theism. We already know that theists are not by rule as stupid, dishonest, and embittered as you're trying to cast them. We've all played along with your caricature as long as we're going to. You've taken it too far; the fact that you're bothering to keep up the routine at this point suggests that you would benefit from at least considering psychiatric help. So get over it, get over yourself, and realize that there are plenty of ways in which you can make a meaningful contribution to the world around you. Reminding us that religious folks can be illiterate twats isn't exactly helpful.

And yes, 107 > 1 ... congratulations on having proved that point, at least. I don't know what the world would have done without that affirmation. We are all in your debt.

ROFL @ Tiassa...such a delusional one...I said ALL BUT ONE OF THE THREADS LISTED WAS FROM 5 YEARS AGO...YOU SAID "CHECK THE ACCUSATION"...AHAHAHA EVERYONE CAN CHECK FOR THEMSELVES ONLY THE "Is belief in God self-delusional" THREAD IS FROM 5 YEARS AGO...AHAHAHA

Man these guys are getting so desperate

ROFL @ Tiassa...such a delusional one...I said ALL BUT ONE OF THE THREADS LISTED WAS FROM 5 YEARS AGO...YOU SAID "CHECK THE ACCUSATION"...AHAHAHA EVERYONE CAN CHECK FOR THEMSELVES ONLY THE "Is belief in God self-delusional" THREAD IS FROM 5 YEARS AGO...AHAHAHA

Hmmm ....

Let's look at that yet again:

• I said ALL BUT ONE OF THE THREADS LISTED WAS FROM 5 YEARS AGO (#1591229/119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1591229&postcount=119))

And the record says:

• NOTHING BESIDES ONE POST LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE FOR...ALL OTHERS ARE FROM 2006 OR 2007 (#1589696/96 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1589696&postcount=96))

You're right. Everyone can check to see what you wrote in post #96.

Hmmm ....

Let's look at that yet again:

• I said ALL BUT ONE OF THE THREADS LISTED WAS FROM 5 YEARS AGO (#1591229/119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1591229&postcount=119))

And the record says:

• NOTHING BESIDES ONE POST LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE FOR...ALL OTHERS ARE FROM 2006 OR 2007 (#1589696/96 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1589696&postcount=96))

You're right. Everyone can check to see what you wrote in post #96.
RIGHT...

So let's look at whats listed in the OP:

"Is belief in God self-delusional?" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5200
"To Theists: Why do you value hope more than truth?" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70888
"theists are more selfish than atheists" -
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70176l
"The problem with magical thinking, poor education, and poor communication" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60169

The list can go on forever

These threads are also left unlocked, I wonder why :
"To my beautiful Atheists" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54889
" Faith is Christian. Other Religions are Real" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71810
"Jesus Action-figure" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=70312
"allah" the stone god! - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=71568

This one is locked:
"God is in all things" - http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72651

Woah...what's this? ONLY ONE LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO ("Is belief in God self-delusional" 2002) THE REST ARE FROM 2006 AND 2007

RIGHT...

So let's look at whats listed in the OP:

Woah...what's this? ONLY ONE LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO ("Is belief in God self-delusional" 2002) THE REST ARE FROM 2006 AND 2007

lol

And yet you still don't get it.

quid pro quo does not an argument make.

Woah...what's this? ONLY ONE LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO ("Is belief in God self-delusional" 2002) THE REST ARE FROM 2006 AND 2007

And?

And?

What do you mean and?

Your whole argument was that everything was from 5 years ago...thats what

i will insult whoever or whatever i damn well please

i will insult whoever or whatever i damn well please

Thats good :rolleyes:

What do you mean and?

Your whole argument was that everything was from 5 years ago...thats what

If you're not going to pay attention to what you write, why should anyone else?

I mean, really ... it's kind of sad to watch. You're not doing yourself any favors.

Normally I wouldn't bother asking, but this time it seems possible you really don't get it:

Do you realize that you've changed your argument?

Here, let's list it out again, just to make sure you haven't missed anything:

In post #64 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1587828), I addressed each of the links you provided in the topic post. One of those links I addressed as follows:
(8) Is belief in God just self-delusion? - Seriously, you're invoking a five year-old thread that hasn't seen action for over a year?
Quoting this response, you asked (#65 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1588119)),
What does time have to do with this?
Part of me wondered about the question. Another part shrugged and decided it was fair. So I responded (#92 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1589484)):
Five years ago this was a different place .... [T]ime is just one of several factors you don't seem to account for in picking out that particular topic.
To which point, you began shouting (#96 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1589696)):
NOTHING BESIDES ONE POST LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO? WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE FOR...ALL OTHERS ARE FROM 2006 OR 2007
Do you see those words, "one post"? I went back to verify your claim about one post. After all, if you've followed the discussion so far, we're still talking about "Is belief in God just a self-delusion?" So I took the count (#118 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1590894)):
Of 127 posts in that topic, 107 are from over five years ago. Approximately 84.25% of the topic is over five years old. And I am ineffably confident that, mathematically 107 > 1.
Yet, despite citing how the discussion led us to this point, you continued yelling, and in a strange maneuver, changed your position and began patting yourself on the back (#119 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1591229)):
I said ALL BUT ONE OF THE THREADS LISTED WAS FROM 5 YEARS AGO...YOU SAID "CHECK THE ACCUSATION"...AHAHAHA EVERYONE CAN CHECK FOR THEMSELVES ONLY THE "Is belief in God self-delusional" THREAD IS FROM 5 YEARS AGO
We're left wondering at the switch. From inquiring about how time affects one topic, you accused that one post was five years old, and that all others were from 2006 or 2007; when that statement was shown to be false, you claimed that you said "all but one of the threads", which is clearly not the case. I attempted to address this switch (#120 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1591240)):
Let's look at that yet again .... And the record says .... You're right. Everyone can check to see what you wrote in post #96.
In fact, you're about the only person who doesn't know what you wrote. Already committed to the lie, you just kept right on shouting:
ONLY ONE LISTED IS FROM FIVE YEARS AGO ("Is belief in God self-delusional" 2002) THE REST ARE FROM 2006 AND 2007
Which is fine, except that it's actually beside the point. It's a separate issue from where we started. Thus, I asked (#123 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1591438)),
And?
To which you replied by lying even more, this time about what I wrote (#124 (htt