(May 2, 2023 at 6:22 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:20 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I would suggest reading the rules if you want to know what's in them. You don't appear to be a very good guesser.

No no don't play this game with me. I read some of them and they are vague. I can also interpret what she said about flushing me as a threat, so what valkyre said is illegal.

I'm not playing any game with you. If you need clarification on a rule that you think is ambiguous, ask them in the questions for staff subforum. Most would be happy to attempt to make things clearer and understandable. At the same time, staff are not infallible. If you feel that a post by a staff member has violated a rule then report said post. It would help if you referenced the rule in your report. Bear in mind two things, however. Repeatedly reporting posts that don't violate the rules could be interpreted as intentional abuse of the reporting system, which is itself against the rules. Second, be aware that a staff member, as with any long term member of the forum, will be given a greater benefit of the doubt than a newcomer, and potentially more latitude or less severe punishment for any infractions.

(May 2, 2023 at 6:33 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: There was no violent language - ‘flushing’ means ‘banning’. 

You’re very stupid.

Boru

I'm aware of that, scumbag. She threatened me with a ban, but threats are illegal according to your rules, remember ?

Consider it a promise, not a threat.

(May 2, 2023 at 6:33 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:22 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote: No no don't play this game with me. I read some of them and they are vague. I can also interpret what she said about flushing me as a threat, so what valkyre said is illegal.

I'm not playing any game with you.  If you need clarification on a rule that you think is ambiguous, ask them in the questions for staff subforum.  Most would be happy to attempt to make things clearer and understandable.  At the same time, staff are not infallible.  If you feel that a post by a staff member has violated a rule then report said post.  It would help if you referenced the rule in your report.  Bear in mind two things, however.  Repeatedly reporting posts that don't violate the rules could be interpreted as intentional abuse of the reporting system, which is itself against the rules.  Second, be aware that a staff member, as with any long term member of the forum, will be given a greater benefit of the doubt than a newcomer, and potentially more latitude or less severe punishment for any infractions.

Yes I do feel they violated a rule, they're threatening with bans, and according to rules threats are illegal, so...........?

I respect everyone but I have very low tolerance for unprovoked personal insults, the OP is completely impersonal and targets atheism in general. I really don't get why they're being so rude

(May 2, 2023 at 6:37 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:33 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I'm not playing any game with you.  If you need clarification on a rule that you think is ambiguous, ask them in the questions for staff subforum.  Most would be happy to attempt to make things clearer and understandable.  At the same time, staff are not infallible.  If you feel that a post by a staff member has violated a rule then report said post.  It would help if you referenced the rule in your report.  Bear in mind two things, however.  Repeatedly reporting posts that don't violate the rules could be interpreted as intentional abuse of the reporting system, which is itself against the rules.  Second, be aware that a staff member, as with any long term member of the forum, will be given a greater benefit of the doubt than a newcomer, and potentially more latitude or less severe punishment for any infractions.

Yes I do feel they violated a rule, they're threatening with bans, and according to rules threats are illegal, so...........?

I respect everyone but I have very low tolerance for unprovoked personal insults, the OP is completely impersonal and targets atheism in general. I really don't get why they're being so rude

If you break rules you will be banned.  Not a threat but a consequence of your actions.  Move forward accordingly.

Whine on.

(May 2, 2023 at 6:38 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:37 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote: Yes I do feel they violated a rule, they're threatening with bans, and according to rules threats are illegal, so...........?

I respect everyone but I have very low tolerance for unprovoked personal insults, the OP is completely impersonal and targets atheism in general. I really don't get why they're being so rude

If you break rules you will be banned.  Not a threat but a consequence of your actions.  Move forward accordingly.

Whine on.

OK OK I get it. But you really have to do something about insults, it's honestly annoying and doesn't encourage discussion

(May 2, 2023 at 6:40 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:38 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: If you break rules you will be banned.  Not a threat but a consequence of your actions.  Move forward accordingly.

Whine on.

OK OK I get it. But you really have to do something about insults, it's honestly annoying and doesn't encourage discussion

When you start a real discussion you might get some genuine discussion back.  For now you are a whining pain in the ass for the forum.

(May 2, 2023 at 6:40 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 6:38 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: If you break rules you will be banned.  Not a threat but a consequence of your actions.  Move forward accordingly.

Whine on.

OK OK I get it. But you really have to do something about insults, it's honestly annoying and doesn't encourage discussion

0/10

Continued thoughts and prayers

RAmen

OK let's get back to discussion, this was my reply to moon

(May 2, 2023 at 5:53 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 5:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Analogies are not evidence. And flawed analogies are worse.

What does not being a personal agent have to do with what evolution is, or is not, capable of? That sounds like you are making the claim that a personal agent is necessary to explain the variety of life, got any evidence for that claim?

You do understand, that claims are not evidence, right?

And, lets say even if you were able to disprove that evolution is not capable for accounting for the existence of humans, that alone does not offer a shred of evidence that a god exists.

More examples of the type you posted, are not evidence. We asked for evidence.

OK the key problem here is evolution. You already speak of evolution as if it were an agent, evolution is just how things happened and changed over time, let's call it a process. The same way the ball walking into the net is a process : it's what's happening but it explains nothing. Someone like a football player kicked the ball purposefully into the net; likewise a master agent "kicked" evolution into human beings and varities of life forms etc. I know this is a fishy way to frame the argument but hopefully you get the idea

(May 2, 2023 at 3:39 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote: As I leaf through dozens of miserable pages of discussions, I see some atheists go so far as to challenge the Almighty God and declare that they are prepared to go to Hell, that they would rather go to hell than -according to these weirdos- worship an unjust deity. 

I don't see how I have any input in the matter.  Fundamentally...if I want to go to hell and a god wants to send me to heaven, that's what it's going to do.  If I want to go to heaven and a god wants to send me to hell...that's what it's going to do.  More personally, I don't find that I can actually choose what I do and don't admire, what types of authority I perceive to be justified, or what sorts of acts or demands or plans I find good or worthy.

Point being that both god and I are apparently locked into who and what we are, particularly with respect to each other.  I suppose I could try to fool it?  I guess it could take a shine to me and break the rules on my behalf...but...really.....I doubt that's what you have in mind.  

Quote:Hell is one of those concepts that the human mind can't really understand when it's defined generically. So here is a really down to earth example:

No trouble at all, and it's a good example of why I'm going to go to hell in this scheme, actually.  I'm not going to cosign any hells..and..supposing I break, because people always do - well what would that show?  That the god in question is exactly the piece of shit it's contended to be and I'm.....human?  

Holy...holy...holy.

(May 2, 2023 at 4:00 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 2, 2023 at 3:54 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Imagine having to read the ramblings of an idiot because it's part of your job as staff.

Hey, whoever you are, watch your tone and be respectful. You really don't want me to fight back.

 Just now came to this thread, having been out scoping out campsites. This eejit comes in swinging and starts whining about treatment. And, OP- you are completely wrong about hell. None of us here are scared of your boogeyman...or you, for that matter. I suspect that you are a pencil-neck 14 year old keyboard warrior. <pats on head>

ETA- he thinks AWTY is afraid of him? That's the reason for my original response's "hilarious" emoji.