Evidence for atheist claims

[SofaKingHigh]

My apologies. Standard sized cocks do not get to measure the big dicks.

Well, as long as we got that cleared up.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, that ointment's good stuff.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Sooo...your rules are such that your mods have to sit quietly and watch Rik basically ignore the rules about preaching and trolling so long as people are "engaging him," and then when people get sick of it and lash out in an attempt to drive him off (or have some fun at his expense in more or less the way he has fun at ours), those same mods are required to turn around and warn those members about insulting a toxic person who trolls constantly and hijacks threads. Do I have that about right?

And yes, he does post in multiple threads. He may mostly stick to one at a time, but once people start ignoring it he moves to a new one.

Besides, why does that even matter? People keep bringing up that "he only posts in one place" thing. Is there a loophole in the rules that allows trolls to troll as long as they stay in one thread? If so, why is it still there?

Let us clear some of yours many dogmas Pinky.
1) Stim already said that is not against the rules to proselytizing.
By the way when i ever did that?
The only time that I did mention my guru was when somebody asked me who I follow so no i never
did proselytizing.
By saying that i follow yoga that is not proselytizing.
2) I never start the fight.
When rude people swear to me like someone called Pinky I do not swear back.
By ridiculing the swearer is a way to back the swearer off so it is not me that start the fight.
3) Nobody is forced to read my posts so there shouldn't be any reason for whining about.
4) You talk all the time about the rules so why don't you follow them by not swearing at me
and in this way start all the trouble?
5) As I already said there is not such a thing as to hijacking the thread.
A forum is not a club in which people inside should follow the same principles.
In a forum arguing is the norm so if you don't like arguing with people you better apply for a club
that fit most your style of life.

Right?  

Oh, are you addressing me? How droll.

Yes, preaching is against the rules of the forum, or at least members are intensely discouraged from it by the rules/etiquette document (I seem to recall something about expecting a broad, adverse reaction from the membership if you show up just to preach at/belittle people with no support for your assertions).

Yes, thread hijacking is a thing, as is trolling, and one piece of evidence that's generally looked for in both cases is a tendency to post the same response or type of response repeatedly and in different threads/conversations. The fact is that you had a whole thread of your own (3, actually) to yak about how you don't understand NDEs, and when that one died you went to another one (which isn't yours and isn't really about NDEs at all) to continue that discussion with no particular regard for the discussion taking place, and then when that thread died because of you hijacking it, you came here and started again. Even if there was some vague, minimal effort early on to at least mention the actual subject, that was evidently abandoned once your foot was in the door, and that is what makes you a hijacker, a troll, and a piece of human shit.

Now, you're probably right about one thing: you might not be outright breaking any form rules. Like most trolls, you have clearly taken pains to make sure you know the system well enough to abuse it without reproach. This, however, proves the point I was actually making, so thanks for that.

If the forum rules enable you to preach, jack threads, troll CONSTANTLY, and generally behave in a toxic fashion while the mods sit sequestered in "private discussions" (discussions that I no longer believe have ever taken place thanks to the multiple canned, bureaucratic responses mentioning them), and those same rules require those same mods to suddenly un-sequester themselves when real members get frustrated with your bullshit and respond on your level, then the rules are broken and need to be fixed. If the admins have to shelter you and punish/warn your opponents while you wear your bad behavior like a feather in your hat, that is a major flaw in the system that should have been addressed before now.

Personally, I try to always address something you've said when I respond, so I really don't think I'm in any danger of getting myself in trouble just by flaming you, but I fully realize that I'm probably cruising toward upsetting the staff with all this open-forum discussion about the rules and how they're enabling a toxic member to shit up the boards and whipping the people who are actually trying to throw the shit back where it came from. If I get in trouble, though, that's OK...just one less person to help these poor souls shovel the shit, and it will demonstrate my point more tidily than anything I could have typed.

[Pat Mustard]

Just a few quick points.

1) Nobody mentioned proselytising.

4) Swearing is not against the Rules.

5) There is absolutely such a thing as hijacking threads.

Right then, I'm taking this thing to Mecixo. Hah, ha, ha, hah.

[robvalue]

I would recommend to everyone that they re-read the rules, there have been several changes even since I become a mod.

Specifically regarding trolling and flaming, we don't generally act unless a member is displaying a trend of such behaviour. When things are reported, we give them careful consideration and discussion.

I can't discuss specific members, but in my opinion the system is very good and fair. Anyone is welcome to PM me if they want to discuss rules, or post in the feedback section.

[RobbyPants]

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

This is an argument from ignorance. You're asserting your stance (God did it) and assuming that if we don't prove it wrong, then you must be right. You haven't even proven God created it in the first place. In addition to being an argument from ignorance, you're shifting the burden of proof by demanding we prove an assertion false.

For comparison, consider this claim: We all know that leprechauns have a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but we also know both that leprechauns are magical and that rainbows are viewed relative to the observer, so they "move" when the observer moves. So, if no one has ever been to the end of a rainbow, how can you claim that there is no pot of gold? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

Don't you think the burden of proof lies on the guy saying that pots of gold are at the end of rainbows?

[The Valkyrie]

I'm quite put out by constantly being referred to as a "member."

Cock is fine, dick acceptable, but member is positively outrageous.

I shall now call you "Flaccid"

[Angrboda]

If we don't have bodies in the afterlife, then what are these near-death EXPERIENCES supposed to be experiences of?  If you don't have a body, then you don't have eyes to see any white light, no ears to hear spirits telling you things, no mouth with which to respond, and no skin to feel warm or cold.  It would seem that by your account, all these NDEs are nothing but imaginings.  How is an NDE proof of anything if the accounts are wholly imaginary, complete hallucinations?

How would you hallucinate considering that your brain is 100% off and totally inactive as established by
doctors and neurosurgeons?
To hallucinate you need a brain that function or at least not completely dead so it is clear that the consciousness take over free from the constrain of body-mind.

The doctors generally don't 'establish' any such thing. Doctors pronounce someone as having 'died' on the basis of non-brain factors, like heart functioning. If the brain were truly 100% off, there would be nothing to come back to. Nearly dead is somewhat alive. Moreover, there is usually a period between such 'death' and coming back to consciousness when the brain is functional, but not awake. You have no way of knowing that the NDE did not occur in that window, so your claim that the experience happened when the brain was 100% off is hollow. According to an IANDS study, a third of NDEs occur outside life threatening situations. There's no way the brain is "100% off" in those cases.

Not only that but as described by most people who had an NDE the consciousness is even more sharp
than when the body was alive.
Easy to imagine that.
When the body is alive the consciousness is stuck inside a body so there exist limitations in what the
consciousness can do but when is free from the body then it can function a lot better.

You're just making this up out of whole cloth. You have a theory, what's your support for it? The experience of an NDE is qualitatively different from that of waking consciousness. That in no way indicates an 'improvement', if anything, the brain's reduced capacity to distinguish between reality and visions could be seen as a degeneration.

It is a dogma to think that we can not feel and perceive things like vision, sound, smell and all other feelings
without a body.

And yet here you are claiming that an NDEer cannot experience the sights and sounds of hell. Sight and sound are physical phenomena. If they can be perceived by a disembodied consciousness, what logical reason is there for supposing that it can't experience the sensation of physical pain?

The consciousness is much more subtle and powerful than the physical senses.

What does this even mean? Consciousness and sensation are different types of phenomena. To compare the two and say that one is more subtle than the other is just a category error.

[Little Rik]

How would you hallucinate considering that your brain is 100% off and totally inactive as established by
doctors and neurosurgeons?
To hallucinate you need a brain that function or at least not completely dead so it is clear that the consciousness take over free from the constrain of body-mind.

The doctors generally don't 'establish' any such thing.  Doctors pronounce someone as having 'died' on the basis of non-brain factors, like heart functioning.  If the brain were truly 100% off, there would be nothing to come back to.  Nearly dead is somewhat alive.  Moreover, there is usually a period between such 'death' and coming back to consciousness when the brain is functional, but not awake.  You have no way of knowing that the NDE did not occur in that window, so your claim that the experience happened when the brain was 100% off is hollow.  According to an IANDS study, a third of NDEs occur outside life threatening situations.  There's no way the brain is "100% off" in those cases.

The heart stop.
The blood and oxygen stop flowing to the brain.
If you only knew the basic ABC about medicine you would know that after a very short time that the
heart stop working the brain is dead but you try to be smart and keep on creating guessing after guessing
just to keep your reputation alive and well.
Sorry yog.
You fail once again.    

Not only that but as described by most people who had an NDE the consciousness is even more sharp
than when the body was alive.
Easy to imagine that.
When the body is alive the consciousness is stuck inside a body so there exist limitations in what the
consciousness can do but when is free from the body then it can function a lot better.

You're just making this up out of whole cloth.  You have a theory, what's your support for it?  The experience of an NDE is qualitatively different from that of waking consciousness.  That in no way indicates an 'improvement', if anything, the brain's reduced capacity to distinguish between reality and visions could be seen as a degeneration.

Mine is not a theory yog.
A myriad of people went through these experiences.
You did not.
Yours is all about guessing and nothing else.

It is a dogma to think that we can not feel and perceive things like vision, sound, smell and all other feelings
without a body.

And yet here you are claiming that an NDEer cannot experience the sights and sounds of hell.  Sight and sound are physical phenomena.  If they can be perceived by a disembodied consciousness, what logical reason is there for supposing that it can't experience the sensation of physical pain?

Whooooo, whoooooo, whooooooo yog.
What a mess in your head yog.  
You claim that............  Sight and sound are physical phenomena.........
How the hell do you know that they are only a physical phenomena?
But let me explain why ........... an NDEer cannot experience the sights and sounds of hell.
As we understand the hell suppose to be physical according the religions version.

When you die physically you leave the body behind so a possible physical hell that of course
does not exist would not be able to make you suffer.
Your physicality is gone so a possible physical hell could not touch you.

The hell therefore is only mental for those whose karma require it but it is not a permanent hell
because through reincarnation anyone can and will sort out his-her own problems.

The consciousness is much more subtle and powerful than the physical senses.

What does this even mean?  Consciousness and sensation are different types of phenomena.  To compare the two and say that one is more subtle than the other is just a category error.

Wrong again yog.

When the consciousness is stuck to a physical body she is not fully able to express herself
but when she is free from the constrain of the body like when the body die then she is able to
fully express herself and therefore we can have the full expression.
Physical senses are constrained by the condition of body-mind that is why they can not give
the full expression.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that what's happening here,  you can't fully express these great truths with your mouth constantly getting in the way?