(March 25, 2012 at 3:20 am)aleialoura Wrote: Where do you get that he's a christian or a fucktard, Phil?

The way he posts. I would think people who have been here awhile would pay attention to that sort of thing. Not only the way he posts but the way he answers. You might be satisfied to wait and see but I am not.

To hell with that ass Schrodinger, let's kill the thing while he's not looking and rendezvous at the pub.

This, btw, would be the sort of behavior I'm talking about.

I don't give a fuck what your initial "suspicion" is - this is just downright appalling. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

If he is a Poe or a troll, there are plenty of staff around to sweep up. In the meantime, Phil, you're being an asshole. Not everyone writes or responds the way you do or the way you THINK they should.

(March 25, 2012 at 5:00 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: This, btw, would be the sort of behavior I'm talking about.

I don't give a fuck what your initial "suspicion" is - this is just downright appalling. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

If he is a Poe or a troll, there are plenty of staff around to sweep up. In the meantime, Phil, you're being an asshole. Not everyone writes or responds the way you do or the way you THINK they should.

No they don't nor did I say there aren't staff around. This has nothing to do with how he writes. It has to do with my making a simple statement and his twisting it so he can respond to something different. unless you care to show me where I said there was a debate. All I said was apologetics is for religion and he replied that EVERYTHING needs defense in a debate. Please tell me where I mentioned debate? If you think that means I should accept his story, sorry, I am not going to start being gullible in order to keep the peace.

He/she could have meant that in being bullied it is required for her/him to defend atheism. Which of course is not apologetics, but rebutting apologetics. Debate is a word which sometimes stands in for argument.

What I'm trying to tell you is that just because someone has a strange way of expressing themselves in no way automatically makes them a troll or poe.

The actual question was why atheism puts people up in arms, which could simply be answered, I think, by saying some people fear the utter lack of belief in god more than they fear people of different religions.

(March 25, 2012 at 5:13 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: He/she could have meant that in being bullied it is required for her/him to defend atheism. Which of course is not apologetics, but rebutting apologetics. Debate is a word which sometimes stands in for argument.

What I'm trying to tell you is that just because someone has a strange way of expressing themselves in no way automatically makes them a troll or poe.

The actual question was why atheism puts people up in arms, which could simply be answered, I think, by saying some people fear the utter lack of belief in god more than they fear people of different religions.

Yet I did ask a direct question as to why he used a large font. How many times have you seen theists come on here claiming they are or were atheists and do that very thing with their first post AND claim atheism needs apologetics? Personally, between here, the com forum, Jref and a few other forums, I have seen the exact tactic used countless times.

Just pretend you are a believer (or in your case, a born again). Remember, you do not need to impress anyone - your rationality is your own and the most important thing you can have. Just concentrate on your school work, go find a good career and enjoy your life. You don't need to openly proclaim your belief's (or lack of it). And for support, you will find plenty of it here. Sorry that you got off on a wrong footing with Phil but if you read his other posts, you will find that he is one of the most interesting person's to be-friend on this forum.

And kids use stupid fonts all the time - I certainly did. And express themselves in goofy ways - I did that too. Also, you said apologetics, not him - it would seem purely because of "debaters and defenders of atheism," which if you think about it in a way is what we actually do on this site.

And I don't care - you don't have any direct proof yet, and even if your suspicion pans out there's no reason to act like a twat immediately. Anyone who happens to be lurking on this site could now be afraid that if they don't express themselves in a particular way they'll get accused of being a troll or poe from the outset and decide they don't want to join or participate, and I find that to be a shame.

(March 25, 2012 at 5:21 am)Forsaken Wrote: Sorry that you got off on a wrong footing with Phil but if you read his other posts, you will find that he is one of the most interesting person's to be-friend on this forum.

Thanks? Now I gotta go look up the definition of interesting

---

(March 25, 2012 at 5:23 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: And kids use stupid fonts all the time - I certainly did. And express themselves in goofy ways - I did that too. Also, you said apologetics, not him - it would seem purely because of "debaters and defenders of atheism," which if you think about it in a way is what we actually do on this site.

And I don't care - you don't have any direct proof yet, and even if your suspicion pans out there's no reason to act like a twat immediately. Anyone who happens to be lurking on this site could now be afraid that if they don't express themselves in a particular way they'll get accused of being a troll or poe from the outset and decide they don't want to join or participate, and I find that to be a shame.

Why would you find it a shame that some lurkers might feel it necessary to look up word definitions so they can use the proper wording in the future so they won't be misunderstood? Fact is if the OP explained that he meant argument and not debate AND he meant defend his reasons rather than just disagreeing when I said atheism doesn't need apologetics (as if he is claiming atheism is a religion) then I would have said nothing. Yet he did none of those things did he?

edit: Besides his claiming that atheism needs apologetics/defense is as dumb as saying reality needs apologetics/defense.

You're speaking rubbish, defence =/= apologetics.

While the pure concept of non-believing in God requires no defence because it makes no claims, it appears to me, that atheists are the subject of a campaign of hatred in the US, with misinformation and pushing that they are "satan worshippers".

If the OP is indeed discriminated against at school, as a minority, he has every right to "defend" his opinions.

If I call you a satan worshipper for not believing in God. Would you not defend yourself from such misrepresentations. While you are broadly right that it needs no defence, jumping to conclusions based on grammatical conjecture is the worst kind of evidence, and you, of all people should know that.