Total Posts:266|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Need some help from the forum ...

neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

So, there it is - what several atheists on this forum have demanded. Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

So I would be interested in getting actual feedback (don;t really care whether its won or lost), but given the antics of so many here who demanded the debate?

I would hope that there is more resolve to it that ... er, my brother atheist is better!!!

Please provide some accurate feedback, at the very least regardless of your position. Again, you guys demanded it and got it, now its your turn.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:21:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

So, there it is - what several atheists on this forum have demanded. Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I can't believe that you're actually just fabricating a quote.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:27:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:21:34 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

So, there it is - what several atheists on this forum have demanded. Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I can't believe that you're actually just fabricating a quote.

Having had several of you demand that very action, its neither a fabrication or a 'quote'. That is the gist of your argument - that somehow disbelief means there is no bigotry in atheism. I simple think we need a more rounded view of the debate than SNP, who is rather biased about the issue, and whose feedback ... frankly, sucks.

All I want, after the serial pestering is someone to take a look at it and provide honest feedback. You are, after all advertising it are you not?

Then lets invite some people it to take a look. Pretty simple.

We both put some effort into it, and I would like a little better feedback one way or the other than ... he be better! Because ... er ... better bro!

OK.

No offense, but when writing a paper in college, etc. If I got feedback like that, I would talk to the professor.

Again, don;t really care who responds, just want some honest feedback.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

The entirety of his argument is about disbelief. Somehow that makes atheism not bigoted. Obviously I disagree, and that would require someone to leave better feedback about why and argument is better than ... nothing.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:31:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

A summary that misrepresents everything.

Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Sorry, but when you have shown yourself to be a complete moron all over this site it is impossible to tell if you are using sarcasm or not.

If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

The entirety of his argument is about disbelief. Somehow that makes atheism not bigoted. Obviously I disagree, and that would require someone to leave better feedback about why and argument is better than ... nothing.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:32:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:27:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:21:34 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

So, there it is - what several atheists on this forum have demanded. Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I can't believe that you're actually just fabricating a quote.

Having had several of you demand that very action, its neither a fabrication or a 'quote'. (...)

If it's not a quote then it's deceitful to place it in quote marks and claim that that is what was said.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:31:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Sorry, but when you have shown yourself to be a complete moron all over this site it is impossible to tell if you are using sarcasm or not.

+1
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:34:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:31:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

A summary that misrepresents everything.

Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Sorry, but when you have shown yourself to be a complete moron all over this site it is impossible to tell if you are using sarcasm or not.

If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

The entirety of his argument is about disbelief. Somehow that makes atheism not bigoted. Obviously I disagree, and that would require someone to leave better feedback about why and argument is better than ... nothing.

So, you voted for ablino because I am a moron who stars up to you? Fully validating my argument.

If you think its inaccurate summary, try something better than calling someone a moron ... no offense, but seriously kiddo, that makes you the moron.

All I want, is for you atheists who DEMANDED that debate to explain why you think the arguments are good or bad.

I hate you is an irrational reason.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:34:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

Then call it a summary.


Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Then highlight that it's sarcasm.


If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

If it was a correct direct quote and not a fabricated one.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:35:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:32:40 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:27:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:21:34 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

So, there it is - what several atheists on this forum have demanded. Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I can't believe that you're actually just fabricating a quote.

Having had several of you demand that very action, its neither a fabrication or a 'quote'. (...)

If it's not a quote then it's deceitful to place it in quote marks and claim that that is what was said.

No its not.

How about the two of you just step out of the way and let other examine the debate - which you demanded and got.

You should not be afraid to invite others to look at the debate. Pretty simple.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:36:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:34:28 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

Then call it a summary.


Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Then highlight that it's sarcasm.


If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

If it was a correct direct quote and not a fabricated one.

How about, you just stop giving me advice because you failed to recognize something?

I am inviting feedback for what you demanded. Please step out of the way and allows others to actually assess. If your argument about disbelief is so strong, others SHOULD be able to explain why.

Its should not be ... "because you my bro atheist!"

Should it?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:37:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:34:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:31:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

A summary that misrepresents everything.

Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Sorry, but when you have shown yourself to be a complete moron all over this site it is impossible to tell if you are using sarcasm or not.

If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

The entirety of his argument is about disbelief. Somehow that makes atheism not bigoted. Obviously I disagree, and that would require someone to leave better feedback about why and argument is better than ... nothing.

So, you voted for ablino because I am a moron who stars up to you? Fully validating my argument.

If you think its inaccurate summary, try something better than calling someone a moron ... no offense, but seriously kiddo, that makes you the moron.

All I want, is for you atheists who DEMANDED that debate to explain why you think the arguments are good or bad.

I hate you is an irrational reason.

He isn't even pretending to be honest anymore. Wait, was he ever? (BTW this is about Neutral, not SNP1. If I didn't clarify that that was the case, then Neutral [and a few others on here] would gleefully jump on the chance to pretend that I was agreeing with them)
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:37:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:34:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:31:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

A summary that misrepresents everything.

Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Sorry, but when you have shown yourself to be a complete moron all over this site it is impossible to tell if you are using sarcasm or not.

If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

The entirety of his argument is about disbelief. Somehow that makes atheism not bigoted. Obviously I disagree, and that would require someone to leave better feedback about why and argument is better than ... nothing.

So, you voted for ablino because I am a moron who stars up to you? Fully validating my argument.

Did I say that? No. I even voted on a different debate giving you and your opponent 3 points because I vote WITHOUT bias.

If you think its inaccurate summary, try something better than calling someone a moron ... no offense, but seriously kiddo, that makes you the moron.

Really? How does that make me a moron? Also, did I say that that summary made you a moron or did I say that your actions on the site make you a moron?

All I want, is for you atheists who DEMANDED that debate to explain why you think the arguments are good or bad.

Maybe I will start saying why, maybe I will not. Besides, I never demanded that debate, did I?

I hate you is an irrational reason.

I never said I hate you, I have no opinion on you. I hate your actions on this site, but that is not the same thing as hating you.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:39:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:36:32 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:34:28 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

Then call it a summary.


Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Then highlight that it's sarcasm.


If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

If it was a correct direct quote and not a fabricated one.

I talk rubbish.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:39:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:37:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:34:06 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:31:58 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

A summary that misrepresents everything.

Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Sorry, but when you have shown yourself to be a complete moron all over this site it is impossible to tell if you are using sarcasm or not.

If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

The entirety of his argument is about disbelief. Somehow that makes atheism not bigoted. Obviously I disagree, and that would require someone to leave better feedback about why and argument is better than ... nothing.

So, you voted for ablino because I am a moron who stars up to you? Fully validating my argument.

If you think its inaccurate summary, try something better than calling someone a moron ... no offense, but seriously kiddo, that makes you the moron.

All I want, is for you atheists who DEMANDED that debate to explain why you think the arguments are good or bad.

I hate you is an irrational reason.

He isn't even pretending to be honest anymore. Wait, was he ever? (BTW this is about Neutral, not SNP1. If I didn't clarify that that was the case, then Neutral [and a few others on here] would gleefully jump on the chance to pretend that I was agreeing with them)

SO you are afraid of honest feedback ... gotcha.

And considering what you just did in another thread, kindly refrain from questioning my integrity.

If what you say is true, it'll come out in the feedback.

Your other option is to run to the mods.

The next atheist to accuse me of dishonesty will be reported to the mods. That simple.

There are rules, and simply because you guys cannot support your positions and are reduced to hurling insults and vapid accusations? That would be on you atheist.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 10:40:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:39:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:36:32 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:34:28 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

Then call it a summary.


Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Then highlight that it's sarcasm.


If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

If it was a correct direct quote and not a fabricated one.

I talk rubbish.

How about both you idiots just STFU and allow someone else to comment on the debate?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:00:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 10:40:18 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:39:21 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:36:32 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:34:28 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:29:25 AM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:25:50 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 4/29/2014 10:16:36 AM, neutral wrote:
Yet its gotten one vote, from an atheist, which says, "Yes, the use of the word disbelief means that claiming you guys are poison and evil is not bigotry - strong argument."

I did not say that. How pathetic is it that you need to fabricate a quote to make an argument?

HINT: It is really pathetic

Its called a summary atheist. Its not a direct quote.

Then call it a summary.


Honestly the inability of atheists to recognize sarcasm, despite their supposedly superior brains and all, is quite disturbing.

Then highlight that it's sarcasm.


If it were a direct quote, it would have a source.

If it was a correct direct quote and not a fabricated one.

I talk rubbish.

How about both you idiots just STFU and allow someone else to comment on the debate?

I can't, don't and wouldn't stop people from commenting on the debate. I think it just doesn't interest many people.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:18:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Got a second one ...

Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.

The resolution was in the title, modern atheism is dressed up bigotry. That it flows from the top, the intellectual leaders of atheism (its best sellers), through its publications, onto the forum, and to the very individual could not be grasped.

Another atheist did not even bother to read the debate.

I think I am seeing far more clearly just how biased atheists are these days.

So two reasons thus far:

#1 - no reason.

#2 - erm ... documenting the behavior of atheists from top to bottom is not tangible or understandable. Gotcha.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:23:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:18:25 AM, neutral wrote:
Got a second one ...

Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.

The resolution was in the title, modern atheism is dressed up bigotry. That it flows from the top, the intellectual leaders of atheism (its best sellers), through its publications, onto the forum, and to the very individual could not be grasped.

Another atheist did not even bother to read the debate.

I think I am seeing far more clearly just how biased atheists are these days.

So two reasons thus far:

#1 - no reason.

#2 - erm ... documenting the behavior of atheists from top to bottom is not tangible or understandable. Gotcha.

You do realise the second voter was a Christian, right?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:27:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:18:25 AM, neutral wrote:
Got a second one ...

Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.

The resolution was in the title, modern atheism is dressed up bigotry. That it flows from the top, the intellectual leaders of atheism (its best sellers), through its publications, onto the forum, and to the very individual could not be grasped.

Therein lies the problem. The resolution was about atheISM, but you only argued about atheISTS. That's why your posts were irrelevant to the resolution.

Another atheist did not even bother to read the debate.

I'm a theist, and I suffered through the entire thing. Your opponent won in the first round. The rest was just repetition.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:47:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:27:14 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:18:25 AM, neutral wrote:
Got a second one ...

Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.

The resolution was in the title, modern atheism is dressed up bigotry. That it flows from the top, the intellectual leaders of atheism (its best sellers), through its publications, onto the forum, and to the very individual could not be grasped.

Therein lies the problem. The resolution was about atheISM, but you only argued about atheISTS. That's why your posts were irrelevant to the resolution.

Another atheist did not even bother to read the debate.

I'm a theist, and I suffered through the entire thing. Your opponent won in the first round. The rest was just repetition.

I didn't forfeit this one. :D
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:27:14 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:18:25 AM, neutral wrote:
Got a second one ...

Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.

The resolution was in the title, modern atheism is dressed up bigotry. That it flows from the top, the intellectual leaders of atheism (its best sellers), through its publications, onto the forum, and to the very individual could not be grasped.

Therein lies the problem. The resolution was about atheISM, but you only argued about atheISTS. That's why your posts were irrelevant to the resolution.

Another atheist did not even bother to read the debate.

I'm a theist, and I suffered through the entire thing. Your opponent won in the first round. The rest was just repetition.

A 'theist', eh?

Then explain how exactly defining oneself as merely disbelieving means you can't be a bigot ... even as you routinely hurl ... you guys are ALL irruption? Poison everything?

Please, explain how that argument makes sense. As a theist, explain why just disbelieving makes you an irrational idiot, but that that's not bigotry. It's science.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:39:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:23:49 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/29/2014 11:18:25 AM, neutral wrote:
Got a second one ...

Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.

The resolution was in the title, modern atheism is dressed up bigotry. That it flows from the top, the intellectual leaders of atheism (its best sellers), through its publications, onto the forum, and to the very individual could not be grasped.

Another atheist did not even bother to read the debate.

I think I am seeing far more clearly just how biased atheists are these days.

So two reasons thus far:

#1 - no reason.

#2 - erm ... documenting the behavior of atheists from top to bottom is not tangible or understandable. Gotcha.

You do realise the second voter was a Christian, right?

When will you allow other people to have a discussion Snow?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:44:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:38:29 PM, neutral wrote:

A 'theist', eh?

Then explain how exactly defining oneself as merely disbelieving means you can't be a bigot .

I never made that claim.

... even as you routinely hurl ... you guys are ALL irruption? Poison everything?

What?

Please, explain how that argument makes sense.

I'm not going to try to defend an argument I never made.

As a theist, explain why just disbelieving makes you an irrational idiot, but that that's not bigotry. It's science.

I've never made that claim.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:44:00 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:38:29 PM, neutral wrote:

A 'theist', eh?

Then explain how exactly defining oneself as merely disbelieving means you can't be a bigot .

I never made that claim.

... even as you routinely hurl ... you guys are ALL irruption? Poison everything?

What?

Please, explain how that argument makes sense.

I'm not going to try to defend an argument I never made.

As a theist, explain why just disbelieving makes you an irrational idiot, but that that's not bigotry. It's science.

I've never made that claim.

Then you very clearly didn't read anything I said in that debate.

Thank you.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:45:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:44:46 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:44:00 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:38:29 PM, neutral wrote:

A 'theist', eh?

Then explain how exactly defining oneself as merely disbelieving means you can't be a bigot .

I never made that claim.

... even as you routinely hurl ... you guys are ALL irruption? Poison everything?

What?

Please, explain how that argument makes sense.

I'm not going to try to defend an argument I never made.

As a theist, explain why just disbelieving makes you an irrational idiot, but that that's not bigotry. It's science.

I've never made that claim.

Then you very clearly didn't read anything I said in that debate.

Thank you.

I read everything you said in the debate.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:50:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:45:14 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:44:46 PM, neutral wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:44:00 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/29/2014 12:38:29 PM, neutral wrote:

A 'theist', eh?

Then explain how exactly defining oneself as merely disbelieving means you can't be a bigot .

I never made that claim.

... even as you routinely hurl ... you guys are ALL irruption? Poison everything?

What?

Please, explain how that argument makes sense.

I'm not going to try to defend an argument I never made.

As a theist, explain why just disbelieving makes you an irrational idiot, but that that's not bigotry. It's science.

I've never made that claim.

Then you very clearly didn't read anything I said in that debate.

Thank you.

I read everything you said in the debate.

Then why are you unfamiliar with the main concept and unable to offer an opinion on its substance when handed it? Indeed incapable of recognizing the exact phrasing used?

Simply put, from the intellectual coterie of atheism (Hitchens, et al), is best sellers, most prolific writers, most celebrated sources, those claims are documented. they are documented in the atheist websites, they turn up in this forum, and the they are there with albino ... a clear following all the way through of people hurling accusation of irrationality and 'poison' the thesis of Hitchens books.

Yet when asked to offer some feedback about that claim ... you are befuddled.

And a 'theist'. Not a Christian as Snow claims.

You clearly did not read the debate.
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 12:55:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the debate was on how atheists are biased and bigoted against religion (something that I completely agree with), your points would have been more valid. Atheism, by definition, is the disbelief in God and supernatural. It does not imply hatred against religion.

Your general behaviour in the forums is also not very civil, and that turns people against you; this obscures the message that you wish to convey. But I do agree with a lot of the points you make.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 1:01:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 12:55:04 PM, Kerfluffer wrote:
If the debate was on how atheists are biased and bigoted against religion (something that I completely agree with), your points would have been more valid. Atheism, by definition, is the disbelief in God and supernatural. It does not imply hatred against religion.

Your general behaviour in the forums is also not very civil, and that turns people against you; this obscures the message that you wish to convey. But I do agree with a lot of the points you make.

That was the debate ...

How disbelief alone make the constant diatribe of religions irrationality endemic and universal? How does it justify comments that we poison everything?

It does not. Those statement are bigoted, and quite common in modern atheism, correct?

So when these comments begin at the very top, flow down through the entire system to the individual ... there is a problem.

Again, that you disagree is self evident, but the method of disagreement is relevant - and what is said in defense of that disagreement matters.

The KKK, as I point out in the debate, is not free of bigotry merely because it disbelieves that black people are their equal. Its still bigotry.

You atheists demanded that debate. Having done so, atheists owe something a little more insightful than 'disbelief'.

desbelief is not magic and it does not means thousands upon thousands of atheists are not bigots and have no hijacked what was once quite reasonable.

It happens. Just ask a Crusader.