Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

# of users to be banned from religion forum?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:32:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning anyone, but there are 3 or 4 that are obviously not here for debate. Also, I would bet our lists differ significantly.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:37:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:32:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning anyone, but there are 3 or 4 that are obviously not here for debate. Also, I would bet our lists differ significantly.

Most likely not. 3 are deists/theists and 1 is an atheist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:50:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:42:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
That I can remember, about 12

Most likely there are more than 4 for me but this is just from what I can remember. There's more users that I don't think contribute much of anything but that doesn't warrant a ban from the religion forum. I'm only thinking of users that have explicitly failed to follow the TOS on a regular basis.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 1:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:50:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:42:14 PM, SNP1 wrote:
That I can remember, about 12

Most likely there are more than 4 for me but this is just from what I can remember. There's more users that I don't think contribute much of anything but that doesn't warrant a ban from the religion forum. I'm only thinking of users that have explicitly failed to follow the TOS on a regular basis.

I am also including those that do not come on as much anymore, but still do every once in a while.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 2:13:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I am not for banning.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness."

We are on a religious forum and should expect to meet such people.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 2:38:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:37:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:32:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning anyone, but there are 3 or 4 that are obviously not here for debate. Also, I would bet our lists differ significantly.

Most likely not. 3 are deists/theists and 1 is an atheist.

I (probably) stand corrected. :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 2:51:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning. I think that it doesn't stop the obsessed from creating a new identity to come back and exact their revenge. And it is the obsessed who typically push the boundaries and cross the line with other users. Although I can think of 1 user's IP I'd like to see blocked indefinitely. My opinion is my own based on a user who I think goes beyond the pale of anything socially acceptable. And I would say it probably differs from your list.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 2:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 2:51:31 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning. I think that it doesn't stop the obsessed from creating a new identity to come back and exact their revenge. And it is the obsessed who typically push the boundaries and cross the line with other users. Although I can think of 1 user's IP I'd like to see blocked indefinitely. My opinion is my own based on a user who I think goes beyond the pale of anything socially acceptable. And I would say it probably differs from your list.

I would also like to add that I don't think this thread will improve anything here. It;s only a matter of time before someone without manners jumps in and starts naming names. It's inevitable D:
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 3:00:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 2:53:51 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 2:51:31 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning. I think that it doesn't stop the obsessed from creating a new identity to come back and exact their revenge. And it is the obsessed who typically push the boundaries and cross the line with other users. Although I can think of 1 user's IP I'd like to see blocked indefinitely. My opinion is my own based on a user who I think goes beyond the pale of anything socially acceptable. And I would say it probably differs from your list.

I would also like to add that I don't think this thread will improve anything here. It;s only a matter of time before someone without manners jumps in and starts naming names. It's inevitable D:

Skepticalone MUST go!!! That guy is beligerent, illogical, delusional, mysogonistic (etc.), TROLL!!! Ban him, ban him, Ban HIM!

It is done. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:03:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 3:00:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 2:53:51 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 2:51:31 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning. I think that it doesn't stop the obsessed from creating a new identity to come back and exact their revenge. And it is the obsessed who typically push the boundaries and cross the line with other users. Although I can think of 1 user's IP I'd like to see blocked indefinitely. My opinion is my own based on a user who I think goes beyond the pale of anything socially acceptable. And I would say it probably differs from your list.

I would also like to add that I don't think this thread will improve anything here. It;s only a matter of time before someone without manners jumps in and starts naming names. It's inevitable D:

Skepticalone MUST go!!! That guy is beligerent, illogical, delusional, mysogonistic (etc.), TROLL!!! Ban him, ban him, Ban HIM!

It is done. ;-)

I was thinking it should be jodybirdy! Standards, Jody! Stop feeding the trolls!
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:18:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:03:43 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 3:00:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/6/2015 2:53:51 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 2:51:31 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

I'm not for banning. I think that it doesn't stop the obsessed from creating a new identity to come back and exact their revenge. And it is the obsessed who typically push the boundaries and cross the line with other users. Although I can think of 1 user's IP I'd like to see blocked indefinitely. My opinion is my own based on a user who I think goes beyond the pale of anything socially acceptable. And I would say it probably differs from your list.

I would also like to add that I don't think this thread will improve anything here. It;s only a matter of time before someone without manners jumps in and starts naming names. It's inevitable D:

Skepticalone MUST go!!! That guy is beligerent, illogical, delusional, mysogonistic (etc.), TROLL!!! Ban him, ban him, Ban HIM!

It is done. ;-)

I was thinking it should be jodybirdy! Standards, Jody! Stop feeding the trolls!

;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:34:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

Response: What I always find sort of odd is how people praise the idea of freedom of speech, that it is a right for everyone should have, and how many people criticize a country or religion for not allowing it. Yet those same people are here saying that people should be banned from the forum. Very hypocritical in my view.

I do not think anyone should ever be banned. Ever. One thing that I have always liked about this forum is the freedom of expression it allows, and why I have always viewed this forum as the best on the net. That is why I never report anything someone says to me or about me. You can insult my mother right now, and I won't report a thing.

For the way I see it is, what better way to expose a person or ideology then to allow them to express their self freely? When a person is rude or trolling, that is a reflection of their self and their ideology. It is a true reflection that they lost the debate and are incapable of being rational.

So ban no one. If someone wants to expose their self by being rude, ignorant, trolls, then that is a reflection of them and at the same time, makes it easier for you to prove that your logic or argument is valid. Not them.

Ban no one. Ever.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 4:51:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:34:56 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

Response: What I always find sort of odd is how people praise the idea of freedom of speech, that it is a right for everyone should have, and how many people criticize a country or religion for not allowing it. Yet those same people are here saying that people should be banned from the forum. Very hypocritical in my view.

I do not think anyone should ever be banned. Ever. One thing that I have always liked about this forum is the freedom of expression it allows, and why I have always viewed this forum as the best on the net. That is why I never report anything someone says to me or about me. You can insult my mother right now, and I won't report a thing.

For the way I see it is, what better way to expose a person or ideology then to allow them to express their self freely? When a person is rude or trolling, that is a reflection of their self and their ideology. It is a true reflection that they lost the debate and are incapable of being rational.

So ban no one. If someone wants to expose their self by being rude, ignorant, trolls, then that is a reflection of them and at the same time, makes it easier for you to prove that your logic or argument is valid. Not them.

Ban no one. Ever.

You over simplify it. We don't want trolls mucking up the debate and distracting others. We want real debate. And when people ending saying things to the effect of "You can't prove dinosaurs existed because you've never seen one" and "internet links to scientific research do not prove evolution because internet links are not evolution" it's a huge waste of time in the end, even if you point out that persons fallacy they still ignore evidence and declare themselves right. It takes up space and is a distraction.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:06:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:51:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You over simplify it. We don't want trolls mucking up the debate and distracting others. We want real debate. And when people ending saying things to the effect of "You can't prove dinosaurs existed because you've never seen one" and "internet links to scientific research do not prove evolution because internet links are not evolution" it's a huge waste of time in the end, even if you point out that persons fallacy they still ignore evidence and declare themselves right. It takes up space and is a distraction.

Response: In other words, your request for bans has nothing to do with trolling. It's about removing a person who does not agree with absurd atheist logic, such as "God does not exist because I cannot see God, yet dinosaurs did exist despite the fact I never saw them" or " I have scientific proof of something. Read my link".

Well, that is just too bad. For no one is obligated to agree with absolutely absurd logic and arguments.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:06:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:51:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You over simplify it. We don't want trolls mucking up the debate and distracting others. We want real debate. And when people ending saying things to the effect of "You can't prove dinosaurs existed because you've never seen one" and "internet links to scientific research do not prove evolution because internet links are not evolution" it's a huge waste of time in the end, even if you point out that persons fallacy they still ignore evidence and declare themselves right. It takes up space and is a distraction.

Response: In other words, your request for bans has nothing to do with trolling. It's about removing a person who does not agree with absurd atheist logic, such as "God does not exist because I cannot see God, yet dinosaurs did exist despite the fact I never saw them" or " I have scientific proof of something. Read my link".

Well, that is just too bad. For no one is obligated to agree with absolutely absurd logic and arguments.

But you are obligated to use logic, other wise you're no better than the trolls everyone wants to see banned. You lower the quality of debate.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:26:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 4:34:56 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

Response: What I always find sort of odd is how people praise the idea of freedom of speech, that it is a right for everyone should have, and how many people criticize a country or religion for not allowing it. Yet those same people are here saying that people should be banned from the forum. Very hypocritical in my view.

I do not think anyone should ever be banned. Ever. One thing that I have always liked about this forum is the freedom of expression it allows, and why I have always viewed this forum as the best on the net. That is why I never report anything someone says to me or about me. You can insult my mother right now, and I won't report a thing.

For the way I see it is, what better way to expose a person or ideology then to allow them to express their self freely? When a person is rude or trolling, that is a reflection of their self and their ideology. It is a true reflection that they lost the debate and are incapable of being rational.

So ban no one. If someone wants to expose their self by being rude, ignorant, trolls, then that is a reflection of them and at the same time, makes it easier for you to prove that your logic or argument is valid. Not them.

Ban no one. Ever.

I like what you say here and I think I can stand behind you on this. I've had a little bit of a problem lately because I stood up against censorship and a group publicly attacking one user. But, I don't really want to see anyone banned. I think the sensitivity surfaces when the attacks become personal. Sometimes the more someone knows about your personal life the worse it can be.

I love the diversity here and I never want that to change. People deserve the right to express themselves and to have the floor here. I think that it is blatant harassment, following and constantly attacking one person because you have a personal dislike for them that needs to be stopped. And the moderators do stop those situations when they are reported. The moderators also do a good job discerning the difference between actual harassment and a disagreement.

I like this site and I don't want the freedom of speech or expression to change.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:06:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:51:51 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

You over simplify it. We don't want trolls mucking up the debate and distracting others. We want real debate. And when people ending saying things to the effect of "You can't prove dinosaurs existed because you've never seen one" and "internet links to scientific research do not prove evolution because internet links are not evolution" it's a huge waste of time in the end, even if you point out that persons fallacy they still ignore evidence and declare themselves right. It takes up space and is a distraction.

Response: In other words, your request for bans has nothing to do with trolling. It's about removing a person who does not agree with absurd atheist logic, such as "God does not exist because I cannot see God, yet dinosaurs did exist despite the fact I never saw them" or " I have scientific proof of something. Read my link".

Well, that is just too bad. For no one is obligated to agree with absolutely absurd logic and arguments.

Furthermore, we can see dinosaurs! Go to a damn museum! See their bones! Fossils!! We can prove evolution! Go read the peer reviewed scientific publications!

You say the quran (an object that must be read) is evidence of God yet you won't even read the data on evolution! Brilliant logic.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:31:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:08:05 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

But you are obligated to use logic, other wise you're no better than the trolls everyone wants to see banned. You lower the quality of debate.

Response: Yes. You are obligated to use logic. You are also allowed to disagree with one's logic. Yet when you cry and complain and campaign someone should be banned, simply because they disagree with you, then it is you who are taking up space.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:36:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:26:02 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 1/6/2015 4:34:56 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 1:26:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Don't specifically name anybody.

All I'm asking is that you put a number on the amount of people/trolls that you think should be banned from posting in the religion forum.

For me my number is 4.

Response: What I always find sort of odd is how people praise the idea of freedom of speech, that it is a right for everyone should have, and how many people criticize a country or religion for not allowing it. Yet those same people are here saying that people should be banned from the forum. Very hypocritical in my view.

I do not think anyone should ever be banned. Ever. One thing that I have always liked about this forum is the freedom of expression it allows, and why I have always viewed this forum as the best on the net. That is why I never report anything someone says to me or about me. You can insult my mother right now, and I won't report a thing.

For the way I see it is, what better way to expose a person or ideology then to allow them to express their self freely? When a person is rude or trolling, that is a reflection of their self and their ideology. It is a true reflection that they lost the debate and are incapable of being rational.

So ban no one. If someone wants to expose their self by being rude, ignorant, trolls, then that is a reflection of them and at the same time, makes it easier for you to prove that your logic or argument is valid. Not them.

Ban no one. Ever.

I like what you say here and I think I can stand behind you on this. I've had a little bit of a problem lately because I stood up against censorship and a group publicly attacking one user. But, I don't really want to see anyone banned. I think the sensitivity surfaces when the attacks become personal. Sometimes the more someone knows about your personal life the worse it can be.

I love the diversity here and I never want that to change. People deserve the right to express themselves and to have the floor here. I think that it is blatant harassment, following and constantly attacking one person because you have a personal dislike for them that needs to be stopped. And the moderators do stop those situations when they are reported. The moderators also do a good job discerning the difference between actual harassment and a disagreement.

I like this site and I don't want the freedom of speech or expression to change.

Response: Well said. I agree. And if this was a debate taking place in person and people disagreed, one would not say let's ban him from the city or country because it is free speech. In fact, the sensible person ignores them and walks away. Yet in the very same country where a internet public forum is created for debate, we hear people say "let's ban them" and some sites actually do. Instead of just ignoring them.

The hypocrisy is evident by many members.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:36:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:31:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:08:05 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

But you are obligated to use logic, other wise you're no better than the trolls everyone wants to see banned. You lower the quality of debate.

Response: Yes. You are obligated to use logic. You are also allowed to disagree with one's logic. Yet when you cry and complain and campaign someone should be banned, simply because they disagree with you, then it is you who are taking up space.

I'm not campaigning, I'm just pointing out how you refuse to look at facts and instead declare your ignorance victory. I show you evidence, yet you ILLOGICALLY reject it.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:40:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:36:43 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

I'm not campaigning, I'm just pointing out how you refuse to look at facts and instead declare your ignorance victory. I show you evidence, yet you ILLOGICALLY reject it.

Response: And I am just pointing out how such a claim is false and it is you who are guilty of what you claim others do.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:43:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:30:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Furthermore, we can see dinosaurs! Go to a damn museum! See their bones! Fossils!! We can prove evolution! Go read the peer reviewed scientific publications!

You say the quran (an object that must be read) is evidence of God yet you won't even read the data on evolution! Brilliant logic.

Response: And people walking the earth saying they see dinosaurs need a psychiatrist. Delusion is not evidence.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 5:51:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:40:30 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:36:43 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

I'm not campaigning, I'm just pointing out how you refuse to look at facts and instead declare your ignorance victory. I show you evidence, yet you ILLOGICALLY reject it.

Response: And I am just pointing out how such a claim is false and it is you who are guilty of what you claim others do.

No you're not pointing it out. You're just doing what I accused you of. You reject factual evidence then declare yourself right.

But what's the point of showing you this? You don't understand how the internet works. You expect me to be a dam wizard and magically teleport to a university research center.

Here is the evidence. How are you going to refute it? Because it's on the internet? How else do you expect me to show you evidence when the internet is our only means of communication? How can you even engage in debate and present facts w/o referencing other sources through the internet? Do you even care at all?

Evidence of Dinosaurs: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
https://www.google.com...

Evidence of modern speciation: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 6:00:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just hope anyone reading this thread and the "debate" between Fatihah and I understand how detrimental trolls are to the forum why they should be discouraged.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 6:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 5:51:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

No you're not pointing it out. You're just doing what I accused you of. You reject factual evidence then declare yourself right.

But what's the point of showing you this? You don't understand how the internet works. You expect me to be a dam wizard and magically teleport to a university research center.

Here is the evidence. How are you going to refute it? Because it's on the internet? How else do you expect me to show you evidence when the internet is our only means of communication? How can you even engage in debate and present facts w/o referencing other sources through the internet? Do you even care at all?

Evidence of Dinosaurs: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
https://www.google.com...

Evidence of modern speciation: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Response: I do not expect you to do anything but continue to prove my case, which is atheism is built on delusion. For science is based on observable, testable evidence. Not a link. So you have shown as usual that there is no scientific evidence that dinosaurs ever existed. Thanks.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2015 6:14:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/6/2015 6:11:24 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 1/6/2015 5:51:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

No you're not pointing it out. You're just doing what I accused you of. You reject factual evidence then declare yourself right.

But what's the point of showing you this? You don't understand how the internet works. You expect me to be a dam wizard and magically teleport to a university research center.

Here is the evidence. How are you going to refute it? Because it's on the internet? How else do you expect me to show you evidence when the internet is our only means of communication? How can you even engage in debate and present facts w/o referencing other sources through the internet? Do you even care at all?

Evidence of Dinosaurs: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
https://www.google.com...

Evidence of modern speciation: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Response: I do not expect you to do anything but continue to prove my case, which is atheism is built on delusion. For science is based on observable, testable evidence. Not a link. So you have shown as usual that there is no scientific evidence that dinosaurs ever existed. Thanks.

Prove the quran is evidence of God. Oh wait Allah isn't a book. Your logic has just disproven God. Thanks.