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
Oh very Humpty Dumpty. Congratulations!! you win this months Amorphous Response prize…but I cant quite describe where you get it or what it is…not at your best here @Sherlock…
4 Likes
jesus fucking christ
Both examples are of USA 
politics (MTG vomit) and cronyism 
I wish this were a Democratic board (it isn’t) it’s a shared matriarch dictatorship.
3 Likes
So this leaped out at me, since we get this a lot from theists who like @Sherlock-Holmes want to claim that atheists disbelieve their claims because they are atheists. When of course the truth, as borne out by the responses to those claims on here, is that generally people are atheists because they don’t find the arguments at all compelling,
Of course this dishonest cart before the horse routine is nothing new, and obviously the dishonesty of it is manifest in that these apologists are not arguing against atheism per se as they pretend, but only against the disbelief in the one deity that they imagine is real, from countless thousands. @Sherlock-Holmes disbelieves in all the same deities any atheist does, but for one, and yet his arguments if anyone cares to click on his profile and go back to his first posts are generic, and could as easily be applied to any of the countless other deities he disbelieves are real, so how can he rationally assert those arguments are both compelling evidence for a deity, then discard all those other countless thousands of deities?
The fact that @Sherlock-Holmes was very reluctant to discuss which deity he actually imagines is real, reinforces how dishonest this tactic is of course, Whenever a theist comes here they expend enormous energy on a tactic they favour or parroting apologetics that are currently in vogue, like the irrational ones used to try and reverse the burden of proof their claim incurs. Paradoxically how often do we see apologists come here and start in their very first post with the most compelling reason they think they have for any deity?
We see a lot of thread titles with hubristic claims of course, but usually they waffle on for weeks or months with dishonest apologetics before they get around to demonstrating what they think is actually their best evidence, and then when it turns out to be no more compelling than the subjective anecdotal hearsay other religions employ it is always those who are not convinced that are blamed. In @Sherlock-Holmes case, of course, he created a poisoning of the well fallacy almost from the very first, using a risible no true Scotsman fallacy, that created a subgroup of people who are unable to properly assess claims or what he calls evidence for any deity, and guess who the sole occupants of that group are? That’s right, it is occupied only by anyone who does not believe in any deity, so laughable and irrational an argument you wonder that anyone would use it unabashed.
So unlike the atheists who examined his arguments and claims presented, and carefully submit them to critical scrutiny, he simply dismisses all objections a priori, then goes through the sham of pretending to debate the responses afterward, with his “trump card” tucked neatly up his sleeve to use when he gets no traction for his claims.
3 Likes