(September 10, 2011 at 6:38 pm)Shell B Wrote: Alright, I am fucking tired of this. I have made something like six posts pointing you back to a post that I made which answered your question. You don't want to debate about it, you want to argue about your priests (or lack thereof), beliefs and agenda. No wonder these people are getting pissed off at you. You are trying to hoodwink them into believing you actually give a shit about the answers while trying to demonstrate to yourself that atheists are big meanie poopie heads. What the fuck? For weeks, all we have gotten are newbs that pull this "Check out my psychological experiment" bullshit. Be direct. Respond to answers that don't have fucking insults in them instead of only zeroing in on insults. Most of all, don't be underhanded. Your facade is very old and there are extremely large cracks in it. Your game has been played. Try the genuine approach now.
I hope all of you will try to redirect this back to the topic so he can stop playing his game. What he believes and who preaches it to him doesn't matter. You get a guy like this sidetracked and it all spirals downhill. I predict right now that he will leave this site with a "You know what, I'm not telling you guys anything. All you did was bully me and you don't care about logic. I'm never coming back." post. Force one topic and when he isn't getting the negative attention he is seeking he will either go away or be forced to have a conversation that isn't loaded with prejudice. I prefer the latter.
Quote:its difficult to engage on the varying levels of discussion, from outright insult to intelligent response
Sure, it is, but you keep skipping stuff and responding only to the negative, which suggests something entirely different from what you are saying.
Quote:I can assure you I have no agenda, other than getting answers to questions that have perplexed me about atheism
Then explain to me why you are ignoring the answers and only engaging in the negativity. I was genuinely interested in this conversation and am positive that my initial response was in no way insulting. I have also seen other posts that weren't insulting go ignored. If you are that interested, you would be engrossed by the answers given to you.
Quote:the torrent of unwarrented insults is a little surprising..
You are not playing a fair game. Therefore, the word "unwarranted" has no place here. You're not surprised. You're pleased with yourself. You are labeling the few insults in here as a torrent and the few suggestions about your faith in here as insults. Why you are doing this could be assumed rather easily, but I don't want to give you anything else to latch on to. Please get back on topic.
Thankyou Shell B, you may be surprised that I am in agreement with you, so can we dispense with the atheist vs theist approach and deal with the question now? How can one subjective view of morality logically refute the subjective morality of another person without reference to a transcendental objective truth?