Keyboard warrior atheists in AH

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

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

Especially when you tried to claim that Richard Dawkins is wealthier than The Pope!

No amount of "produce financial statements" or "tell me the net worth of both men" is going to convince anyone that Dawkins is richer.

I've never seen Will Smith's birth certificate. I've never seen David Cameron's birth certificate............ but funnily enough I know which of the 2 is black!

Shenshen

Einhard wrote: »

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.

That is a skewed way of looking at it, though. After all, what matters isn't so much what money you have in your account, but what money you have at your disposal.

dvpower

Why the hell does it matter who's richer?
This thread really has turned farcical.

partyatmygaff

Einhard wrote: »

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 operate word there is some. Many believers miss that, and seek to tar all atheists with the same brush.

Not me, in any case.

"High profile atheists" is almost a derogatory term, and anyone trying to get a point across is "militant".

Not really. It's more so the ones who attack people and not their beliefs and who are aggressive and uncivil who are called militant.

MrStuffins

Einhard wrote: »

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.

And, due to liquidity, I probably have more money than a lot of Millionaires in the world. It means nothing though.

dvpower wrote: »

Why the hell does it matter who's richer?
This thread really has turned farcical.

Wasn't it a farce to begin with?

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

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

Shortly after you joined??



Sorry, couldn't resist!:D

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Especially when you tried to claim that Richard Dawkins is wealthier than The Pope! No amount of "produce financial statements" or "tell me the net worth of both men" is going to convince anyone that Dawkins is richer.

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

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

And, due to liquidity, I probably have more money than a lot of Millionaires in the world. It means nothing though.

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

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not really. It's more so the ones who attack people and not their beliefs and who are aggressive and uncivil who are called militant.

Although, a lot of the time, these Atheists arent actually attacking anyone. Don't you agree that religious people can be very very sensitive when it comes to anyone questioning anything that they believe in? a lot of the time there's no attacking taking place at all!

twinQuins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

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

More obtuseness. Unless you've somewhere provided evidence to back up your claims I've been addressing your constant evasion.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

A double standard you still haven't proven exists.

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.

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.

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).

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

sbsquarepants

Einhard wrote: »

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.

To-may-to, to-ma-to.
Fact remains every single US president is an extremely wealthy individiual, just like every single Pope. To suggest that the Pope somehow eeks out a meagre existence whilst completely surrounded but the most austentatious display of wealth anywhere in the world, is patently ridiculous.

Einhard

MrStuffins wrote: »

I've never seen Will Smith's birth certificate. I've never seen David Cameron's birth certificate............ but funnily enough I know which of the 2 is black!

Cameron is Tory, so he has a black heart.:D

Shenshen wrote: »

That is a skewed way of looking at it, though. After all, what matters isn't so much what money you have in your account, but what money you have at your disposal.

Not necessarily. I can spend all the money in my account as I see fit. Benny can't. He might control the Vatican, but he can't sell off the Pieta for personal gain.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not really. It's more so the ones who attack people and not their beliefs and who are aggressive and uncivil who are called militant.

I find Dawkins quite civil. And yet he is routinely branded a militant atheist.

MrStuffins wrote: »

And, due to liquidity, I probably have more money than a lot of Millionaires in the world. It means nothing though.

Yes, but the millionaires have control over their assets. They can do with them as they please. That's the essence of wealth. The pope cannot arbitrarily dispose of the assets over which he has authority. Hence, he cannot be said to be personally wealthy.

Anyway, I agree, this is dragging things off topic.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

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

Well it was you who first claimed Dawkins was the richer. Can you show us?

prinz wrote: »

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

Well, in fairness here Prinz, he can personally claim any of the Catholic Church's possessions. Which are in the billions. Whether they are signed under the name "Joseph Ratzinger" only really matters to you.

sbsquarepants

dvpower wrote: »

Why the hell does it matter who's richer?
This thread really has turned farcical.

This is why

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).

This seems to imply that only atheists like Dawkins make money from religion, which is a quite absurd claim if you ask me.

Einhard

sbsquarepants wrote: »

To-may-to, to-ma-to.
Fact remains every single US president is an extremely wealthy individiual, just like every single Pope. To suggest that the Pope somehow eeks out a meagre existence whilst completely surrounded but the most austentatious display of wealth anywhere in the world, is patently ridiculous.

I never suggested that. To suggest that I suggested something which I never actually suggested, is, I suggest, ridiculous.

:pac:

RichieC

Dawkins deserves money, he coined the word meme!

MrStuffins

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but the millionaires have control over their assets. They can do with them as they please. That's the essence of wealth. The pope cannot arbitrarily dispose of the assets over which he has authority. Hence, he cannot be said to be personally wealthy.

Yes he can. He is the head of a sovereign state and the head of a massive organisation. He is infallible! He can do as he damn-well pleases because nobody can question him!

partyatmygaff

MrStuffins wrote: »

Although, a lot of the time, these Atheists arent actually attacking anyone. Don't you agree that religious people can be very very sensitive when it comes to anyone questioning anything that they believe in? a lot of the time there's no attacking taking place at all!

Some people can be sensitive but that's not what i'm talking about.

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.

dvpower

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes he can. He is the head of a sovereign state and the head of a massive organisation. He is infallible! He can do as he damn-well pleases because nobody can question him!

I don't think his infallibility extends that far.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think his infallibility extends that far.

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

jill_valentine

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course i know who both of them are.

I don't think you do. You're trying to suggest that they both trot out atheist rhetoric for monetary gain or purely for the sake of self-promotion, which would itself suggest that you're unfamiliar with their careers or writing.

For a start, you're throwing their names around together as if they're interchangeable. They are not. Dawkins and Hitchens are very, very different dudes.

Second, both men made their names and careers in their respective fields long before they became associated with atheism, and it was only because of those careers that religion or lack thereof became an issue. In Dawkin's case, religion presents a frustrating obstacle to honest scientific enquiry. Hitchens, on the other hand, is primarily now a political commentator and has always reserved the main part of his formidable bile for Islam.

Third, Christopher Hitchens is on his last legs, and now has little to gain personally from persisting in vocalising his atheist stance. Still, he does so.

MrStuffins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Some people can be sensitive but that's not what i'm talking about.

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.

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

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think his infallibility extends that far.

Of course it does. If he decided tomorrow that he wanted to pretend (well, he's the Pope so he'd actually be telling the truth remember) that he had a devine revelation telling him that he should sell €1m worth of the church's assests and buy himself a summer home in Miama, he could do it!

And although the post sounds intentionally silly, it doesnt take away from the fact that it's true!

prinz

jill_valentine wrote: »

Third, Christopher Hitchens is on his last legs, and now has little to gain personally from persisting in vocalising his atheist stance. Still, he does so.

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.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

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

The Pope is a human being. He decides what are the formal beliefs of the church and what are not. He could easily skew these beliefs to his own personal advantage. He just doesnt that's all! Why would he?

Also Prinz, I notice how you#ve kept up with form. You tell people they are wrong when they can't produce proof. You are asked to produce proof (since you were the original claimant) and you completely ignore it!

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

And although the post sounds intentionally silly, it doesnt take away from the fact that it's true!

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

sbsquarepants

Einhard wrote: »

I never suggested that. To suggest that I suggested something which I never actually suggested, is, I suggest, ridiculous.

:pac:

I didn't mean you personaly suggested it, just that the general suggestion that the man is anything other than vastly wealthy is absurd. Which it is.

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think his infallibility extends that far.

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

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Also Prinz, I notice how you#ve kept up with form. You tell people they are wrong when they can't produce proof. You are asked to produce proof (since you were the original claimant) and you completely ignore it!

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.

pragmatic1

prinz wrote: »

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

So you're saying the pope isnt infallible.

Einhard

MrStuffins wrote: »

Yes he can. He is the head of a sovereign state and the head of a massive organisation. He is infallible! He can do as he damn-well pleases because nobody can question him!

Cowen is the head of a sovereign state too...

And the pope is only infallible in matters of doctrine.

Einhard

pragmatic1 wrote: »

So you're saying the pope isnt infallible.

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