Daystar

[Kyuuketsuki]

he's banned. Which is a shame really, I really liked him.

I'd be a hypocrite if I said I did.

Kyu

[Rob]

I guess you're right. I suppose he didn't lash out at me as he did some others.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I guess you're right. I suppose he didn't lash out as me as he did some others.

To be fair to him (and yes I can think of many, many reasons why I did) I lashed out at him too indeed, in some ways I'm surprised I'm still standing.

Kyu

[Darwinian]

Yes, be careful or you'll end up in the naughty corner as well

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes, be careful or you'll end up in the naughty corner as well

Yes boss ... I'm trying (very trying LOL)

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Its not him [Daystar] that I didn't like. It was his repeated dodging questions about the supernatural and still go about claiming it that I didn't like. If he's going to claim he's gotta be willing to be questioned. It was very annoying for him to expect us to give evidence but he'd never do the same.
It was hypocrisy. And he was very arrogant and ignorant for accusing us as being 'zealous' and saying that asserting atheism is a religion again and again after repeatedly failing to provide any evidence of that and to address the point that: Atheism is absence of a belief! If you're an atheist you can practically believe in ANYTHING except God. Its open minded. Unlike religion. Unlike religious and scripture-based belief when you go along with all the crap in scripture and/or your religion despite the fact there's no evidence of the truth of such assertions in the scripture/religion!
And he was a trouble maker for constantly digressing, dodging questions and at times, throwing insults. He told me once that "darwin believed in a creator". I asked what he was talking about and he replied with a quote from the edition of 'Origin' where Darwin added 'the creator' into it. I explained that I was very familiar with that quote and that wasn't in the original 'Origin' and as I think Dawkins said it was probably added 'As a sop to the religious lobby'.
What was his reply?: "I know Darwin didn't believe in God really, I was just trying to annoy you".
It was ignorance and trouble making. Time wasting. He didn't annoy me he just wasted my time and I found it amusing that he was being so petty and pathetic
So I replied with: "Pity you failed"

[Giff]

Even though he didnt believe in evoution- Which I alredy pointed out that thought was really strange, specially when you look at the evidence- do I think it´s wrong to bann him.

If Daystar is reading this then I´m sorry you are banned. Even though you didnt agreed with me and other with the same thought should you have the oppertunity the debate and discuss your thoughts.

As I said I dont know how you cant believe in evolution and if you look at all evidence taht there is then I think that you will change your mind. Otherwise are you just stubern and blindly reject all evidence their is. Priests here in my country at leastm and many others in other countries, believe in evolution the big bang and so on. Just like Dahlai Lama, the biggest leader of buddhis, does he also believe in evolution, science in overal and big bang.

Anyway its unfortunate that we cant discuss more. I got a little bit angry and so did you. I cant say I like you, you act like other fundamentalists does, but I respect you anyway and think you should be able to debate.Hopefully will you be back, if so there will probably me many argument and fights. But hopefully something good will eventually come out of it.

[Darwinian]

He wasn't banned because he didn't believe in, or understand evolution. He was banned simply because of his behaviour.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes. What I didn't like was he was basically expecting double standards. He wanted to question at least some of us and didn't like it whenever HE was questioned about HIS beliefs regarding the supernatural. And yet he still went on asserting them. Then he asserting to some of us (at least to me) that it was us that were unwilling to debate! He kept dodging questions and digressing and flaming when he felt like it.
He was hypocritical. At least in the sense that he expected to question us and want evidence from us when he never gave any himself on the things (at least I) questioned him about. How come he can ask me for evidence but he can go on claming things and expect not to be asked for evidence himself? That's double standards! He was being hypocritical for a start.
And he saw at me and told me and said I can't have read what he put about earthquakes. So I responded with "You didn't answer my question I was asking about your evidence of the supernatural. I wasn't asking for an example of how the supernatural is misunderstood when its in fact he natural! (which is what he gave me).
Finally in the end just before he was banned he FINALLY said:"I don't have any evidence of the existence of the supernatural" finally! He said it!!
So he had no right all along whatsoever for all this digressing hypocrisy and at times flaming! He told me to read "the fucking post" when he was referring to a post oh is that didn't respond to my question. I could have said back "It didn't address my fucking question. It was a complete digression, either you didn't read mine, or you fucking ignored my point!" but I didn't say that. I just told him he didn't answer my question. He kept asserting his claims without expected any questioning. He was the debate stopper not me!
And he was more than happy to question me! Didn't like it the other way around though. Complete debate killer and he told me I was bad at debating. I said if he has a problem with my debating then fine, explain whats the problem. Please elaborate.
And I explained why I certainly have a problem with his debating! As I have explained here! He's the debate stopper!

[Purple Rabbit]

The ban on Daystar is too restrictive to my taste. Stubborn behaviour and hard headedness can't be enough reason to ban someone. That behaviour is how the person portrays himself on the forum open and plain, for everybody to see. When you don't want to respond to the same rhetoric anymore, just don't or put him on your ignore list. I think it is the wrong choice on the issue of free speech. If on a forum dedicated to atheism free speech is restricted like this, then where can we truly find free speech?