Keyboard warrior atheists in AH

partyatmygaff

twinQuins wrote: »

If I came on here making a wild claim without backing it up would you believe me? Of course not and rightly so. I'm not being unreasonable in asking you to back up your own claims, in fact I shouldn't even have to point that out.

Wild claims =/= Common observation

Besides, I have provided you a source by which you can find proof for the phenomenon I mentioned. I will not waste my time re-reading massive 500 page threads just to "prove a point".

In any discussion/debate/whatever the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. I have no obligation to prove your point for you, that's your job.

Great. I don't care. I've provided you the source upon which I made by observations. If you want to look at it and see if my observations are innaccurate or accurate then go ahead. If not then stop bothering me.

In other words, yet again you've been pulled up on something you're wrong about and are now desperately backpedaling.

Wait a second. You've "pulled me on up on something". That's new. All you've seemingly done is attempted to manipulate what I say to get me banned.

What other purpose would you have in explicitly mentioning the mods unless to imply that their moderation is part of this supposed double standard.

I was merely pointing out an example of double standards on AH. To be fair to them, i'd say the fact that a post attacking atheism always gathers a far greater reaction from the posters of AH than a post attacking theism. Far more people would report a post along the lines of "Atheism is stupid" labeling it trolling whilst far less people would report a post along the lines of "Religion is stupid".

A double standard you still haven't proven exists.

How can I prove it exists without referencing individual people and earning myself a ban for personal attacks and criticism?

No I'm not, I'm pointing out that you are criticising the moderation of AH because that is your whole point. You're not interested in proving that what you claim goes on because you know it doesn't. You just want to have a go at atheists in general and, now it seems, mods.

So because I mention the words moderation in one or two lines of my post my entire point becomes the moderation of AH? What rubbish.

As for having a go at atheists. I'd like to see how i've done that considering I posted the following just a few posts back.
"The number of keyboard warrior atheists who make uncivil and insulting posts is far less than that of civil, normal atheists."

Because you're unused to someone challenging what you have to say?

I've been a part of many massive megathreads spanning hundreds of pages before on AH. I highly doubt you could call me unused to people challenging my posts.

twinQuins

pragmatic1 wrote: »

So you're saying the pope isnt infallible.

I don't know the specifics but AFAIK it's only on certain subjects that the Pope is taken to be infallible. I think pronouncing on the Catechism is one but I'm almost sure there are others.

jill_valentine

Bear in mind, for Hitchens it remains mainly an ideological thing. Dawkins is different, science is his stock in trade and he has to apply it's method rigorously. It's a tradeoff - Dawkins' reasoning has to be that little bit more finely detailed, but Hitchens gets to be the big theatrical blusterer on talkshows.

Hitchens is a formidable character - the conversation will be less interesting in his absence - but man, I wouldn't want to hang out with him.

Knasher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Fallible, infallibility?
As super powers go, it's no invivsibility, now is it!:)

Really if I had a choice between the two I would go for the infallibility every time. An inability to make mistakes would be far far more useful. And by the definition it would be the correct decision.

Sorry completely off topic. :P

prinz

pragmatic1 wrote: »

So you're saying the pope isnt infallible.

YOu obviously have no clue of the concept of papal infallibility so perhaps you should look that up and come back. Unfortunately you are not alone, and it's always entertaining when people who spend an awful lot of time on boards laughing at religion, Roman Catholicism in particular of course, are ignorant of the basics.

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

Afraid not. Someone made an unsubstantiated claim which they can't back up. I just turned it around. Now if that poster wants to prove their original claim to be true they still can. .

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Interesting point.
Who would you say is wealthier, Dawkins or the Pope?

prinz wrote: »

Dawkins.

Interesting recall of the way things happened

pragmatic1

Einhard wrote: »

Even the pope doesn't claim to be completely infallible.

So hes only partially infallible. How do we know when to listen to him and when to take what he says with a pinch of salt then.

sbsquarepants

Knasher wrote: »

Really if I had a choice between the two I would go for the infallibility every time. An inability to make mistakes would be far far more useful. And by the definition it would be the correct decision.

Sorry completely off topic. :P

Schoolboy error there Knasher, you'd only be infallible after the choice was made.
Invisibility every time!:D

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Afraid not. Someone made an unsubstantiated claim which they can't back up.

You mean this one??

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Interesting point.
Who would you say is wealthier, Dawkins or the Pope?

prinz wrote: »

Dawkins.

?


EDIT: Beaten to it by Squarebob Spongepants!

pragmatic1

prinz wrote: »

YOu obviously have no clue of the concept of papal infallibility so perhaps you should look that up and come back. Unfortunately you are not alone, and it's always entertaining when people who spend an awful lot of time on boards laughing at religion, Roman Catholicism in particular of course, are ignorant of the basics.

Dont get your knickers in a twist love. I'm aware of the concept.

Einhard

pragmatic1 wrote: »

So hes only partially infallible. How do we know when to listen to him and when to take what he says with a pinch of salt then.

Well if you're a Catholic you should know!;)

Seriously, and this isn't in relation to you personally pragmatic, but it always amuses me how little those who profess a faith know, or even care, about that faith.

Helix

partyatmygaff wrote: »

An example of what i'm talking is someone saying that all religious people cannot think for themselves or are somehow of inferior intelligence. Things along that vein.

yeah everyone knows its only most of them:P

RichieC

If I ran around the place saying there was an invisible man watching me all the time I'd be put in a home, all I need to add is "oh but it's god" and I'm sane again... it's pretty funny old setup.

dvpower

Einhard wrote: »

Even the pope doesn't claim to be completely infallible.

... and since he's infallible that must mean that he isn't.

jill_valentine

pragmatic1 wrote: »

So hes only partially infallible. How do we know when to listen to him and when to take what he says with a pinch of salt then.

Hold on here dude.

Papal infallibility isn't just a hazy concept any more - the church have rules for when and if it applies, brought in to avoid just this argument. Basically, the Pope can turn on and off his infallibility powers when he says something, it doesn't just automatically kick in for anything he says, for fear somebody will ask him something before breakfast and he'll say something stupid that'll be quoted all over the internet until the end of time.

Your wider point - of whether one man can be a credible, indisputable source for the moral guidelines of an enormous international congregation - is a worthwhile one, but pursuing it under the "Papal Infallibility" heading won't work.

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

I don't think that happens as much as people would have you believe.

It happens far too often here on boards and i've witnessed it countless times, even against myself personally. Hence the point of the thread being keyboard warriorism.

Even the most militant and aggressive of Atheists here on AH would never walk up to a religious person in public and claim that they are of inferior intelligence. It just doesn't happen. If someone called a stranger mentally inferior merely for believing in a God in a restaurant or pub for example what would you call them?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

You mean this one??
EDIT: Beaten to it by Squarebob Spongepants!

Ever heard of a tongue in cheek answer to a slanted question? Apparently not.

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Dont get your knickers in a twist love. I'm aware of the concept.

Aware of it. Just don't quite understand it. Gotcha.

twinQuins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Wild claims =/= Common observation

It's your contention that it's a common observation, that is clearly not the case.
Why? The issue was addressed on Feedback and it was found not to be so.

So. Prove your point.

Besides, I have provided you a source by which you can find proof for the phenomenon I mentioned. I will not waste my time re-reading massive 500 page threads just to "prove a point".

Go look up burden of proof just... look it up. I'm done trying to explain such a simple concept to you.

No wait, I'll do the decent thing and actually give you a goddamn link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Great. I don't care. I've provided you the source upon which I made by observations. If you want to look at it and see if my observations are innaccurate or accurate then go ahead. If not then stop bothering me.

I'll stop "bothering" you when you have the decency to back up your own claims.

Wait a second. You've "pulled me on up on something". That's new. All you've seemingly done is attempted to manipulate what I say to get me banned.

I provided my surmisation. Feel free to correct me, as I point out below.

I was merely pointing out an example of double standards on AH. To be fair to them, i'd say the fact that a post attacking atheism always gathers a far greater reaction from the posters of AH than a post attacking theism. Far more people would report a post along the lines of "Atheism is stupid" labeling it trolling whilst far less people would report a post along the lines of "Religion is stupid".

So let's settle this point at least: are you saying mods - acting in their capacity as mods (to make this painfully clear: I'm talking about their moderation decisions) - engage in this supposed double standard? Yes or no.

How can I prove it exists without referencing individual people and earning myself a ban for personal attacks and criticism?

If it exists then the mods are in the wrong and will be censured for it. You would only be punished if you were wrong about there being a double standard.

EDIT: If you're talking about ordinary posters then I still don't see why you'd be punished. People reference posts by individual posters (even I do it) and are never punished.

So because I mention the words moderation in one or two lines of my post my entire point becomes the moderation of AH? What rubbish.

Nope. Didn't say that. I said the point you were making was that mods are complicit. Why else would you mention them?

As for having a go at atheists. I'd like to see how i've done that considering I posted the following just a few posts back.
"The number of keyboard warrior atheists who make uncivil and insulting posts is far less than that of civil, normal atheists."

Fair enough.

I've been a part of many massive megathreads spanning hundreds of pages before on AH. I highly doubt you could call me unused to people challenging my posts.

Clearly you are otherwise you'd be well used to actually backing up your claims.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Ever heard of a tongue in cheek answer to a slanted question? Apparently not.

:rolleyes:

You've been caught out Prinz come on now.

So since you're just an advocate of substantiating claims, care to substantiate yours?

smokedeels

pmcmahon wrote: »

yore ma's an athiest

reminds me of this...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070205115350AAUPUWq

A distressed mother writes a yahoo question regarding her non-theistic homosexual offspring...

Answer number 5 is gold: "you mean your son is a gaytheist"

Einhard

MrStuffins wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You've been caught out Prinz come on now.

So since you're just an advocate of substantiating claims, care to substantiate yours?

Hush you. Everyone knows prinz is infallible!:D

pragmatic1

Einhard wrote: »

Well if you're a Catholic you should know!;)

Seriously, and this isn't in relation to you personally pragmatic, but it always amuses me how little those who profess a faith know, or even care, about that faith.

Who said I was a Catholic or that I have faith.

partyatmygaff

twinQuins wrote: »

So. Prove your point.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php

All the proof you need can be obtained through that link.

Go look up burden of proof just... look it up. I'm done trying to explain such a simple concept to you.

Sorry for wasting your time Professor. I'm giving up on my philosophy degree.


This is my final reply to this thread of posts. Let me be painfully clear. I don't care if you agree with my observations or not. If you want to see if i'm right go search for yourself. I have no intention of wasting hours of my time "proving" something as pointless as this nor indeed continuing to waste my time saying the same thing over and over again to you.

Einhard

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Who said I was a Catholic or that I have faith.

Seriously, and this isn't in relation to you personally pragmatic, but it always amuses me how little those who profess a faith know, or even care, about that faith.

ScumLord

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It happens far too often here on boards and i've witnessed it countless times, even against myself personally. Hence the point of the thread being keyboard warriorism.

Even the most militant and aggressive of Atheists here on AH would never walk up to a religious person in public and claim that they are of inferior intelligence. It just doesn't happen. If someone called a stranger mentally inferior merely for believing in a God in a restaurant or pub for example what would you call them?

People don't go up to other people and speak their minds in public, it just doesn't happen. Any of us could be talking to a racist and get the impression he's not racist because he goes along with what your saying because he just doesn't have the interest in getting into an argument with a stranger in the street.

Whenever anyone asks me directly in real life I'll state my position, I've come to the opinion that I shouldn't pander to religious belief. If I think something is wrong I'll say so, I won't argue about it and just give my reasons for not believing it and they can take it as they like.

My problems aren't with religion itself just the organised religions dogma. I don't have a problem with Buddhism or Christians that live a Christian life it's when they use their faith to judge others (which is a fundamental part of most religions as far as I can tell) that I'll get aggressively anti religion.

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

You've been caught out Prinz come on now.
So since you're just an advocate of substantiating claims, care to substantiate yours?

I've responded to this already.

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It happens far too often here on boards and i've witnessed it countless times, even against myself personally. Hence the point of the thread being keyboard warriorism.

Even the most militant and aggressive of Atheists here on AH would never walk up to a religious person in public and claim that they are of inferior intelligence. It just doesn't happen. If someone called a stranger mentally inferior merely for believing in a God in a restaurant or pub for example what would you call them?

Well i'll give you an example of what DOES happen.

At a party last week, a girl in my company was talking about her faith and her Christianity etc. I was very interested in listening to her. When she was finished she asked me about my faith, to which I replied "No I don't believe in God". She was appauled.

So she started asking questions like "But how can't you believe?" etc and saying things like "But you won't go to heaven". I wasnt in the arguing mood. But she said "God created the earth and then Adam and Eve". (I didn't think people ACTUALLY believed that but i digress) I replied "Well, you believe Dinosaurs existed right?"

"Of course" she said.

"Well how can you reconcile that with the Adam and eve story?"

At this point she started saying "How dare you attack me! How dare you question my religion..." blah blah blah!!

Do you see an attack in this scenario?

LondonIrish90

KeithAFC wrote: »

It seems to me the only people who really care what religious people spout is people who make money from it (ie, Dawkins, Hitchens etc).

Its clear you have some sort of religious belief, why then do you go on and on and on about being Northern Irish, a Protestant, a Unionist, an Ulster Scot and all the bollocks? Surely if you believe you will be going to heaven for ever and ever and ever, then 80 years of life, 90 if you are lucky, is so unbelievably short lived and of no consequence that your boring, repetitive views aren't necessary? After all, if you have it right, you will be living with all the catholics and protestants, irish and british in one place for ever.

Just strikes me as incredibly strange. Its like me starting a massive argument over the placement of a cushion when building my own house. That from a non religious person btw.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

I've responded to this already.

prinz wrote: »

Care to present any statements of individual net worth to go along with this?

prinz wrote: »

In other words more typical childish clap-trap. People must get bored of it at some stage.

prinz wrote: »

I'd say I was about 5 when I first asked if the president of the US was really, really rich, because he lived in a big white house and owned all of the US. Apparently you are still using the same reasoning I did way back then.

prinz wrote: »

I was avoiding this one like the plague, but then it just turned farcical.

prinz wrote: »

Yes, Obama owns the whole lot personally. You realise there is a Conspiracy Theory forum for this kind of stuff right?

prinz wrote: »

LOL. No evidence needed for unsubstantiated claims? The internet really has changed.

prinz wrote: »

So go on what assets does Joe Ratzinger have a personal claim on? How wealthy is the Dalai Lama on this scale?

prinz wrote: »

It doesn't. Not even remotely close to it.

prinz wrote: »

Ironically enough the scientist that Hitchens got a lot of help from is his Christian usual debate opponent. Puts Dawkins' quest in a new light really. Interesting point to note.

prinz wrote: »

It isn't, and this is why these discussions of boards go nowhere.

prinz wrote: »

Afraid not. Someone made an unsubstantiated claim which they can't back up. I just turned it around. Now if that poster wants to prove their original claim to be true they still can.

prinz wrote: »

YOu obviously have no clue of the concept of papal infallibility so perhaps you should look that up and come back. Unfortunately you are not alone, and it's always entertaining when people who spend an awful lot of time on boards laughing at religion, Roman Catholicism in particular of course, are ignorant of the basics.

prinz wrote: »

Ever heard of a tongue in cheek answer to a slanted question? Apparently not.



Aware of it. Just don't quite understand it. Gotcha.

Where? You made a claim, where did you back it up exactly?

Wait....... you wouldn't be not practicing what you preach would you?

Einhard

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well i'll give you an example of what DOES happen.

At a party last week, a girl in my company was talking about her faith and her Christianity etc. I was very interested in listening to her. When she was finished she asked me about my faith, to which I replied "No I don't believe in God". She was appauled....

Sounds like a really crackin' party!!


Ye sure it wasn't a prayer meeting?!:p