Keyboard warrior atheists in AH

MagicMarker

KeithAFC wrote: »

You would not comment on them if you didn't care.

Why do you care what I think?

partyatmygaff

twinQuins wrote: »

So you don't have anything to back up what you're saying. Just as I thought.

Perhaps a lesson in how to use the search function is in order? Lest we have to endure more of this condescending rubbish.

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

I've read it all once before. I've no intention of repeating the process just to prove something obvious.

I don't recall offering an opinion at any stage.

Barring your opinion that I am making unsubstantiated claims? This thread is for people who have experience with the AH threads in question. Anyone who has actually read or taken part in these threads has all the evidence they need. If you haven't, then that's not my problem.

That's not what I said. I said I don't tend to read them, meaning I'd read the odd one. In that time I've never seen any examples of personal abuse by ahteists, which would be a pretty clear breach of the charter.

Of course you've never seen examples of personal abuse by ahteists (sic) if you've read the "odd" one (Which i'd understand to be 'I clicked on one by accident and read the first page'). The number of keyboard warrior atheists who make uncivil and insulting posts is far less than that of civil, normal atheists.

KeithAFC

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why do you care what I think?

I like you.

Blackhorse Slim

There's only one way to settle this argument - AH style. We need the big man in here now, going Old-Testament on our blasphemous asses, making the sky turn green with purple dots and raining brimstone on the heathens while protecting the righteous.

So what do you say big man? Settle an argument for us?

MagicMarker

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

There's only one way to settle this argument - AH style. We need the big man in here now, going Old-Testament on our blasphemous asses, making the sky turn green with purple dots and raining brimstone on the heathens while protecting the righteous.

So what do you say big man? Settle an argument for us?

He mostly comes out at night.... mostly.

gcgirl

A paranoid Schizophrenic says I've seen my (now dead) Mother (carted off to a hospital)
A Religious Person says I've seen The Virgin Mary (A Shrine is erected)

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

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

No.
But i have been to one of their houses and it was quite expensive looking!

If you're privy to their bank details, feel free to post them though.

smokingman

I've been told a few times that I'm going to this hell they speak of.
I usualy turn around and tell them they are also going there for the many infractions they chose to ignore or never read about in their bible.
Most religious people in Ireland have never read the bible - I know far more atheists who do.

As for keyboard warriors, there's always spanners out there, be they any kind of faith or none. Just rise above and ignore it if it gets yer goat.

twinQuins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Perhaps a lesson in how to use the search function is in order? Lest we have to endure more of this condescending rubbish.

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

I've read it all once before. I've no intention of repeating the process just to prove something obvious.

If it's so obvious you should have no problem in pointint it out.

I mean really, if you make a claim you are the person who backs it up. Are you new to all this or just deliberately being obtuse?

Barring your opinion that I am making unsubstantiated claims?

That's not an opinion. You haven't substantiated your claims and you continue to avoid doing so.

This thread is for people who have experience with the AH threads in question. Anyone who has actually read or taken part in these threads has all the evidence they need. If you haven't, then that's not my problem.

This thread is for whoever damn well wants to post in it. Barring some mod instruction (and I don't see Mod: After Hours under your name) I'll continue to post in it.

And, of course, more deflection about proving your point. Not everyone posting in this thread will be familiar with the posts you're talking about unless you can read minds and see that they can.

Of course you've never seen examples of personal abuse by ahteists (sic) if you've read the "odd" one (Which i'd understand to be 'I clicked on one by accident and read the first page'). The number of keyboard warrior atheists who make uncivil and insulting posts is far less than that of civil, normal atheists.

Two questions: have you reported those posts? What was the outcome if you did?

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No.
But i have been to one of their houses and it was quite expensive looking!
If you're privy to their bank details, feel free to post them though.

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

pragmatic1

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).

No you're very wrong there. I do care what religious people spout, especially when it comes to poisoning young minds.

flas

flas wrote: »

yes every memebr of the clergy is a pedo..in this cuntry i have yet to see someone push the roman catholic faith on me but i have had numerous people tell me how stupid it is, its so annoying its ridiculous, if you dont believe in something dont believe in it but let other people who do, do it in peace...

This is where I have to stop thanking posts and make one of my own.

The Roman Catholic faith is pushed on the majority of Irish children. Your personal experience doesn't invalidate this fact. Why are you annoyed by people telling you it's stupid? Instead of getting angry, why not listen to what they have to say?

Irish people have a terrible habit of masturbating (pun!) to the thought of the status quo. They don't like having our beliefs questioned, or having to think about things; they avoid conflict, shy away from intellectual argument, and can't fathom the idea of shaking off mammy mentality. They tell people to shut up when they stand up and make a fuss over an obvious injustice. It's like stockholm syndrome, or some other weird love of obedience. This is why Ireland is largely still a backwards country.

To destroy Fianna Fáil, it took the worst financial scandal in the history of the state. To damage the Catholic Church, it took public recognition of decades of systematic child abuse and rape. And yet, despite these advances into the 21st century, they exposed the worst of being Irish: for example, when the student protests were happening, so many people sat around, complaining about the protesters, as if challenging something is abhorrent (not specifically the violence which took place). The exact same thing happens with atheists.

According to swathes of the Irish public, atheists shouldn't attack religion or superstition. But why? I reckon it's because Irish people - especially the religious or loopy 'spiritualists' - just don't like having to think. In the same way that a public speaker in Temple Bar ranting about brutal régimes in the Middle East would be dismissed and ignored by 99.9% of Irish passers-by (regardless of how correct or reasonable his arguments are), atheists are told to shut up and stop criticising religion, despite its horrific crimes and constant desire to retard the minds of children and humanity's scientific and rational progress.

Bah. :pac::pac::pac:

partyatmygaff

twinQuins wrote: »

If it's so obvious you should have no problem in pointint it out.

I mean really, if you make a claim you are the person who backs it up. Are you new to all this or just deliberately being obtuse?

I've said it once and I will say it one final time. I have read thee threads already. You evidently have not. I have no intention of wasting my own time re-reading hundreds of posts just to prove a point to someone.

That's not an opinion. You haven't substantiated your claims and you continue to avoid doing so.

I'm afraid it is. My post is aimed at those who have read and partaken in the threads in question. Those who have have all the evidence they require. If you want to keep repeating yourself using a few choice phrases then by all means continue. I, on the other hand have much better things to be doing with my time than wasting my time re-reading hundreds of posts.

This thread is for whoever damn well wants to post in it. Barring some mod instruction (and I don't see Mod: After Hours under your name) I'll continue to post in it.

Continue to post in it by all means. Just don't expect to be taken too seriously considering you apparently have no real experience of the topic in question.

And, of course, more deflection about proving your point. Not everyone posting in this thread will be familiar with the posts you're talking about unless you can read minds and see that they can.

They can search for the posts in their own time. I have work to get done.

Two questions: have you reported those posts? What was the outcome if you did?

Yes. Nothing.


I'm not criticising the moderation of AH. The posters on AH of which the moderators of AH are a part both have a serious case of double standards. If someone insults Atheists they get banned for trolling and their thread locked. If someone insults Religious people they get paraded by the people of AH and the mods turn a blind eye and lock the thread once it has run its course. Again, before someone says take it to feedback i'm not criticising the mods of AH.

dvpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The number of keyboard warrior atheists who make uncivil and insulting posts is far less than that of civil, normal atheists.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're going to hell.

:eek:

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

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

Have you been at the alter wine for lunch or what?
Firstly you answer that you believe Richard Dawkins is wealthier than the Pope, then ask for financial statements to prove you wrong - and then accuse me of childish clap trap?
Come off it for god sake (no pun intended).
Stevie Wonder could see who has the real money!

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Have you been at the alter wine for lunch or what? Firstly you answer that you believe Richard Dawkins is wealthier than the Pope, then ask for financial statements to prove you wrong - and then accuse me of childish clap trap?
Come off it for god sake (no pun intended). Stevie Wonder could see who has the real money!

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.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

This is where I have to stop thanking posts and make one of my own.

I guess it's a valid method to harvest thanks...


Anyway, Ignoring the rest of the populist thanks-whoring in the rest of your post...

atheists are told to shut up and stop criticising religion,

Who's telling Atheists to shut up? Being told to be civil and refrain from making nasty snide comments about people "not being able to think for themselves" and the like isn't telling them to shut up. It's telling keyboard warrior atheists to be civil to other people.

despite its horrific crimes and constant desire to retard the minds of children and humanity's scientific and rational progress.

If there was a Leaving Cert exam for Propaganda you'd get an A1 for that.

partyatmygaff

dvpower wrote: »

:eek:

Guessing your humour detector must be broken?

Knasher

KeithAFC wrote: »

You care what religious people think? Wow, the world must be boring on your end. Honestly, why does it matter if a religious person thinks your going to hell if you don't believe in it?

Like i said, two people who make a big fuss about the subject, make money from it.

The reason I care what religious people think is because generally people in power tend to follow the religions of the majority of their constituents and tend to base a lot of their laws and decisions around their interpretation of their religious doctrine. I don't care if you think I'm going to hell however I would care if you insulted me to my face by telling me you hope I go there.

twinQuins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I've said it once and I will say it one final time. I have read thee threads already. You evidently have not. I have no intention of wasting my own time re-reading hundreds of posts just to prove a point to someone.

So you have no exmaples: your statements are false. That's okay.

Yes. Nothing.

Then clearly it wasn't personal abuse or otherwise in breach of the charter.

I'm not criticising the moderation of AH. The posters on AH of which the moderators of AH are a part both have a serious case of double standards.

This is uncanny. You're not criticising the moderation... and then in the very next sentence go on to criticise it! Yeah, obviously you're full of horse manure and are just looking to stir ****.

Anyone interested in genuinely discussing the issue would have no problem providing some examples to actually prove what they're saying is true.

If someone insults Atheists they get banned for trolling and their thread locked.

Can you give even one example of this? Just one. If not then I'm afraid I'm going to have to say, once again, that you're just making **** up.

If someone insults Religious people they get paraded by the people of AH and the mods turn a blind eye and lock the thread once it has run its course. Again, before someone says take it to feedback i'm not criticising the mods of AH.

But you are! That's exactly what you're doing!

sbsquarepants

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.

You should have stuck with that way of thinking. The president of the US is really, really rich (though this one is not as rich as the last one!) and so is the Pope (though he's much, much richer than dubya could ever dream of being)

dvpower

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're going to hell.

You're not.

Knasher

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It's telling keyboard warrior atheists to be civil to other people.

Keyboard Warrior

1. A Person who, being unable to express his anger through physical violence (owning to their physical weakness, lack of bravery and/or conviction in real life), instead manifests said emotions through the text-based medium of the internet, usually in the form of aggressive writing that the Keyboard Warrior would not (for reasons previously mentioned) be able to give form to in real life.

Telling people to be civil is admirable, telling people to be civil while simultaneously insulting them isn't.

MrStuffins

An Atheism v Theism thread??

In before the Prinz........... oh, wait..........

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

An Atheism v Theism thread??
In before the Prinz........... oh, wait..........

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

Einhard

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Who's telling Atheists to shut up? Being told to be civil and refrain from making nasty snide comments about people "not being able to think for themselves" and the like isn't telling them to shut up. It's telling keyboard warrior atheists to be civil to other people.

I agree with you to an extent. Some atheists can be quite illiberal in their attitude to believers, and unnecessarily insulting in their retorts. However, the operative word there is some. Many believers miss that, and seek to tar all atheists with the same brush. There has been, after all, a number of posts in thsi thread alone, to te the effect that atheists should be seen and not heard. Indeed, it seems that one of the main complaints of some believers, is that atheists have the temerity to express themselves at all. Thus, the likes of Dawkins is often criticised not so much for what he says, but the fact he says it. "High profile atheists" is almost a derogatory term, and anyone trying to get a point across is "militant". The Bible is the best selling book of all time, and the Church the biggest property owner on the planet, but publishing an atheist work, or fronting an atheist tv programme, is somehow beyond the Pale. There's a double standard at play amongst even those believers with the mildest of views on the matter.

As for your comment about Hell, one doesn't need to believe in such a place, nor even be offended by such remarks, to note the aggression, hostility, ad sheer inhumanity of believing that soneone will burn for eternity.

prinz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You should have stuck with that way of thinking. The president of the US is really, really rich (though this one is not as rich as the last one!) and so is the Pope (though he's much, much richer than dubya could ever dream of being)

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

Links234

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

partyatmygaff

twinQuins wrote: »

So you have no exmaples: your statements are false. That's okay.

You have a strange tendency to ignore what you read and just speak the first thing that comes to your mind.

Then clearly it wasn't personal abuse or otherwise in breach of the charter.

Of course. I must have forgotten that moderators are infallible. Let's steer this conversation out of this dangerous waters shall we?

This is uncanny. You're not criticising the moderation... and then in the very next sentence go on to criticise it! Yeah, obviously you're full of horse manure and are just looking to stir ****.

I am criticising the double standards of AH posters. As AH moderators are naturally AH posters they fall under what I am criticising. As it is not exclusively the moderators that I am criticising it follows that I am not criticising their moderation. Feel free to selectively quote what I write and write random rubbish to incite popular support though. I'm sure that's much more fun.

But you are! That's exactly what you're doing!

You're trying to get me to imply that I am criticising the moderation of AH so that I can get banned. You're not fooling anyone with your act.

If you're going to reply in the same vein of your earlier posts, save your breath. (I await your obligatory "Likewise" reply in earnest).

Einhard

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You should have stuck with that way of thinking. The president of the US is really, really rich (though this one is not as rich as the last one!) and so is the Pope (though he's much, much richer than dubya could ever dream of being)

He's not rich because he's president of the US. And the pope has very little personal wealth. I'd wager that, in terms of property actually owned, and $$$ in my account, I'm wealthier than Benny.