Completely skipped this section.

[Angrboda]

I think this frodo character likes to stir shit up. This should have been over when you didn't understand where the burden of proof rests...Okay then...

Just as a matter of rules and such, it's preferred that introductions be kept separate from sections where debate is accepted, and this section focuses solely on meeting and greeting. You seem ready to tangle with the theists, but for those who come to the introduction section just to meet and greet, where often personal details are shared, the forum prefers not to leave them open to being accosted by aggressive regulars. That's what the rest of the forum is for. And if we can't do it, it's not fair for you to engage in it going the other direction.

We also have a rule about calling out other members, so it would be inappropriate to create a thread demanding Fr0d0 continue the discussion there, but you can ask him if he would be willing to start such a thread devoted to his views, or start a thread devoted to your specific viewpoint, without making it directed at him. You may also ask the moderators to split off the part of your introduction thread that has turned into a debate, so that you can continue the discussion outside the Introductions section. (Just "report" the post at which you want the split, giving your request that it be split as the reason; or, PM a moderator or staff member and ask them to split the thread.)

[MJ the Skeptical]

Yeah, I thought it was a bit off-putting that he was debating someone's introduction thread about something very obvious with where the burden of proof rests.

I have no problem with what he's doing if he wants to keep talking about this. I think this is an open and shut case by now, but who knows, he might double down on the faith card.

[fr0d0]

I think this frodo character likes to stir shit up.

You learn quickly, young padawan.

He is an atheotard incapable of learning.

[MJ the Skeptical]

I think Frodo needs an e-hug.

[fr0d0]

Loop to post #10

Your burden meaning the burden that you think exists, but actually doesn't.

Confirmed by your entrenching into science as the subject when addressing religion/theology. A subject which is completely out of the realms of scientific measurement, as you kindly established in your rant against yourself - because it certainly misses the mark by miles, and I confidently ignore all of it as irrelevant and the rantings of desperation

[Cinjin]

You learn quickly, young padawan.

He is an atheotard incapable of learning.

Frodo, this mild insult would be no problem anywhere else, but we do not allow them in the Introduction Forum.
No one is allowed to insult anyone in an introduction thread. This rule is non-negotiable. We want all new members to feel welcomed here.


This is a reminder for everyone.

[pocaracas]

Welcome QT.
Don't mind Frodo... he's special.
Go play out there. This intro section is too restrictive for sweeping generalizations of theists! :-P

[thesummerqueen]

You learn quickly, young padawan.

He is an atheotard incapable of learning.

Mind your manners.

[Whateverist]

Yet still you can't tell me what the claim is?

You can't accuse me of circular reasoning until I produce a reason that is circular. If you're going to make my argument for me then that's a sure way to win

Excuse me, but you said the theologies burden of proof has been met, when it clearly hasn't. That is circular reasoning and begging the question.

Frodo you do seem to be vacillating between speaking for all theists vs all atheists in terms of who has the burden of proof -and then- turning it personal and asking exactly what claim you yourself have made which has a burden of proof.

Everyone here can think of any number of theists who've made claims such as that the world only appears old, that morality is nonsense without a supernatural bad-ass to ensure consequences, and so on. So whether or not you've made any such claims, your more careful claims cannot shield the many crazies from the burden of proof.

---

Oops, where are my manners? Welcome Quantum Man! May you have many enjoyable moments here at AF!

[fr0d0]

He is an atheotard incapable of learning.

Mind your manners.

If you look you'll see I was called a creotard first. I'm not saying that makes me right, but it does display a certain blinkered vision.

A apart from this retaliation I have remained civil in this conversation, unlike the op.

Whateverist: I was mistakenly accused of reflecting back the burden of proof, as I explained in my last post above. I playfully went along with the accusation and did qualify it.

The op made the sweeping statement about all religions, not me. If the statement doesn't apply to me (and many other Christians), then am I not entitled to point that out?

Besides, atheotard seems to be a pretty accurate description for this person. Unlike his insults directed at me which he makes without knowing my stance on anything he's said about me.

Although I may be wrong... a wild and inaccurate insult isn't an insult at all, where an insult well aimed is actually something. I retract.