What’s disappointing here is that the person being abused by those who disrespect the forum rules of civility is the subject of much chit chat, like juveniles giggling in the school hallway. But those breaking the rules with repeated ad hominem, accusations of “liar” and “dishonesty” and “bollocks” and “fuck off” and so on, carry on with impunity.
3 Likes
Good to know, but it was an obvious lie, there’s no bitterness on my part. For clarity here is your lie:
As we can see @skriten gave an expansive detailed explanation of his position, and you responded with a blatant lie.
It was a factual statement, you’re projecting the rest. Do we have to do this each time you lie?
No.
Also I never called you a liar, I highlighted mendacity in your post. How you subconsciously categorise yourself in the light of that fact is nothing to do with me.
Yeah, I am as dubious about that claim as I am about the one’s for a deity and magic, but that’s because I base my beliefs on objective evidence, also you have dishonestly evaded countless posts of mine when it is obvious your religious spiel is irrational and unevidenced, so why would I care that you’re pretending this is some new event when your posts demonstrate unequivocally it’s a dishonest tactic you’ve used from the very first?
Do you imagine I can’t expose your posts without your handwaving and sulking?
I never called you a liar, your grasp of language is pitiful, I did however point to a lie in your post, now if your confusion is genuine then that’s a shame, but if it’s not then it’s very dishonest, and thus pretty ironic.
Why do you keep saying that? You don’t get to tell anyone else what they can and cannot comment on.
I know, it’s almost as redundant as pointing out his lies now. Does he imagine anyone has not noticed he is only responding to me when I point out he’s lied, and has been ignoring everything else? It’s reminiscent of a small child who thinks it can’t be seen when it covers or averts its face, though it’s funnier when children do it of course.
You could always stop lying? Then learn to understand the simple fact that the relentless dishonesty in your posts is not being civil, and I can’t stress this one enough, nobody cares nor are they obliged to care, about your faux indignation or dictatorial verbiage about what represents civil discourse. Would larger lettering help?
If you lie it is discourteous, and will be pointed out.
You’re welcome…
Oh any examples of your “host of good reasons to believe the gospel myths are supernatural in origin” likely to be demonstrated any time soon? I think we all know the answer by now, just asking for the many neutrals you think your spiel is going to convince that your deity is real…
1 Like
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…cough cough…hahahahahahahahahahah…achoo!...hahahahahahahahahahHahah…(farts loudly)…cough cough….whew…wait, where was I
?…oh yeah, Hahahahahahhahhahahahahhahaha…(wheezing loudly…must stop…can’t breathe…
Yet even if true, I have been barred from accessing the site on two occasions a punishment reserved for disobedient theists alone it seems, let me remind you what “impunity” means:
There’s no impunity in my case because I’m clearly not exempt from punishment unlike Shelodon, Cognostic and Caliaseialiaaieelaliassaeca - to name just three, not that I expect anything to change, I never expect much by way of ethics, civility and politeness in these kinds of forums let alone impartiality when enforcing rules.
Care to offer a quote, what forum rules are you claiming I have violated?
To be fair you never offered much either, right from the start trying to goad people by lying about the definition of atheism, as if they themselves don’t know, or are not able to understand what they do and do not believe. Here for example, is a demonstrable lie, since a) you do argue for and advocate theism, and b) atheism per se makes no claims, another lie you have tried to peddle from the start.
Since some here seem unaware that there are rules, let me take this opportunity to restate them:
Calling a person a liar is to disregard the rule “But remember to criticize ideas, not people” and to avoid “Name Calling”.
And:
That one seems to have been abandoned years ago, so “fuck off” is deemed family safe language? how times have changed.
Naturally I fully expect apologists to explain that these rules don’t mean what they say.
Finally searching for:
gives us:
Why have these rules at all.
If it were just name calling then yes, but I have not done that, I pointed out lies in your posts, with evidence of the duplicity. This is a comment directed at your posts, it’s not just name calling, and I didn’t call you a liar, had I done that and not offered any comment on your post, then yes it would be ad hominem. Ironically this is another lie from you, since I have taken the time to try and make you understand this already more than once. Your hurt feelings are not evidence that the accusation you lied is ad hominem.
We can easily test your claim objectively, quote me literally “calling you a liar” without any context offering an actual lie you’ve told?
Which is precisely what I have done. Though the irony here is that you run away from such criticism, and try to obfuscate with these false claims I have used ad hominem.
For more context:
Oh oh oh apologise for calling me, indeed all atheists here liars, right now… 
Like your rule that a thing must not exist before it can be explained, doesn’t seem to apply to the deity you imagine is real.
FYI I think the moderators here do an awesome but thankless job, so for the record thanks @CyberLN and @Whitefire13 and I don’t know if @David_Killens is still here but thanks.
I’d also like to say reading the odd vituperation doesn’t harm anyone, and context is all important, I think sites that pedantically punish people for pointing out relentlessly dishonest posts, while allowing posters to be relentlessly dishonest with impunity, is far more damaging to debate and civility.
1 Like
Here’s an example of how to handle ad-hominem and insults, those who approve of such abusive conduct need to realize they have that in common with Marjorie Taylor Green:
Sigh…yes. You have been put in time out twice. Rightfully so. The posters you mentioned (@Sheldon, @Cognostic, @Calilasseia) have years long track records here of helpful, honest, knowledgeable, thoughtful debate. You, on the other hand, have a few months of dodging, writing untruths, executing logical fallacies, the list goes on. Do those other posters cross the line on occasion? Maybe. Do they get spanked for their behavior from time to time? I’ll leave that up to them to disclose. But here’s the deal, if you had the same sort of track record and then engaged in behavior that required warnings, you likely would be treated the same way. But that’s just not the case. You started out only a few months ago telling the folks here who identify as atheist that their view of reality was vacuous. You started off telling folks that how they define their atheism is wrong. Need I go on?
Really, I could go on but I’d far rather go make and enjoy a martini. Bottom line….you simply haven’t earned what they have.
3 Likes
Bumpity bumpity bump…
Oh fuck. What are you gonna do, whine now. You post your bullshit, get called on it, dig in your heels trying to defend it, spout complete nonsense in your effort to defend your position, and then get upset because you are viewed as a dishonest troll? Really?
What’s that ole expression? Something about shoe sizes and comfort levels?
2 Likes
May I at least call people I disagree with “liars”? is that allowed then? or are only certain individuals allowed to do this? It’s just the rules say nothing about earning privileges that allows one to break rules.
PS:
What on earth are you talking about? Am I to take it you disagree with something I wrote? perhaps you’d be so kind as to quote me? give me some clues or is this possibly just an invective laden rant?
You already called all the atheists here liars, repeatedly. I am beyond offended… 
1 Like
No, tell us what would convince you first, and what criteria you would use to evaluate it, there’s no point @Cognostic wasting his time on a closed mind that’s only going to reject all the evidence out of prejudice.
1 Like
You were quoted. I quoted you in nearly every post I wrote. Sheldon quoted you. Calilasseia quoted you. Cyber quoted you. Now you want to pretend you have not been quoted and your misinformation not called out. (That’s lying.) You are a dishonest interlocutor. You read what you want to read. You obfuscate meanings intentionally. You make unfounded claims and assertions. As an apologist, your posts show a complete lack of critical analysis and rationality. You are so stuck on being the great apologist and defending your position that you can’t see the reality in front of your face. Your position is unsupportable.
4 Likes
Nailed it, and I’d bet my house on the evidence of his posts, that were you to have offered an example he’d have ignored it, or resorted to hand waving…This latest display just looks like more obfuscation, and the more his rhetoric is questioned, the more imaginary slights he seems to focus (exclusively) on.
2 Likes