It’s ok…you have “people” who care…
And why they continue allowing you to take up so many threads with your dishonest bullshit is beyond me. You’re lucky I am not in moderation. I would restrict your ass to one thread and ban you the next time you did not answer a direct question. There will come a point when people just find your bullshit game of manipulation annoying.
Oh that was 7 months ago when he started this irrational game of double standards, where science is decried as not capable of answering questions based on the limits of our current knowledge, but his deity, how it exists, where it came from, how supernatural power is possible, how a deity is possible, how it used supernatural power to create anything are all given a free pass.
Basically, science doesn’t (currently) know = a deity did it.
Yet the questions where did a deity come from = I don’t know.
Anonymous hearsay in the gospels written nearly a hundreds years after the events they purport to describe, making unevidenced claims about magic that defies natural and scientific facts = eyewitness testimony.
And all without a hint of irony.
2 Likes
I’m guessing all the times you lied, along with your relentless irrational assertions, your incorrigible and dishonest intent to address them, your relentlessly dishonest evasion, your sententious tone, the dishonest way you compare irrefutable scientific facts, with subjective unevidenced archaic superstition, and probably a bit more, since you ask.
You’re damned lucky I’m not in moderation, all the uncivil personal insults and attacks is clearly a rule violation and you’d be barred for repeatedly engaging and even supporting such outrageous behavior:
Right there is an open abuse of the rules, but nobody cares about rules except when they can be used to silence those who disagree with you.
Oh I doubt this has anything to do with luck.
Not to be too technical, Sherlock, but Cog was not insulting you. He was simply describing you. Just sayin’…
Oh, I’m aware Sherlock is currently on a brief hiatus at the moment. However, I thought it would be nice to have a “Welcome Back” message waiting for him upon his return. You know, just to let him know we missed him. I’m very thoughtful like that. 
(Edit to pat myself on the back for a job well done.)
3 Likes
Actually, I think Cog was describing what Sherlock was saying not Sherlock himself. There’s a big difference between saying a person is shit and saying what that person wrote is shit.
6 Likes
Exactly so, the same as pointing out lies in posts, and simply calling someone a liar are different.
2 Likes
Quite frankly, I don’t have much of a problem with character descriptors as long as the person has clearly demonstrated their descriptor. 
1 Like
Thank you for noticing. I think I generally tried to stay to commenting about his comments. The most - I think I did, without reviewing, was call him dishonest. I may have slipped up, (Not wanting to review my own bullshit posts.) but my general focus was on the ignorance of the comments and not on Sirlock himself. At least that was the intent. I admit, I am not always successful, and I do let things slide… I can be a baaaaad little monkey.
3 Likes
Ahhh… Got it. 
Nevertheless, I confess I still find it “interesting” how/why some folks get so bent out of shape by “insults” directed at them. Yes, yes, I know there must be “rules” in place to keep conversations civilized and keep things from getting out of control. I do understand that. Still, I personally find it hilarious if somebody gets to the point where they think their only option for a response is to hurl derogatory remarks at me. Lets me know I must be doing something right. 
Literally makes me giggle, especially if the insults are lame. And if the insults are particularly creative and “intelligent”, then I might actually be impressed and flattered. But, hey, that’s just me. I recently bought a shirt that has on the front, “You find it offensive? Well, I find it funny. That’s why I’m happier than you.” Generally speaking, that’s pretty much my mindset in regards to such things. Reminds me of something I’ve said on here a couple of times before, but it’s worth repeating. (Paraphrasing the quote I saw a long time ago.)…
“Why get mad or offended if somebody makes a derogatory remark about you? If the remark is not true, then the remark can be discarded as foolishness. (Especially - often times - if you consider the source of the remark.) But if the remark is accurate, then you have no business getting angry over somebody telling you the truth.”
Anyway, just my two cents on the matter.
(Edit to sharpen my fangs.)
1 Like
You worthless hunk of tin! You think I don’t know you are talking about ME! HA! You heartless, empty chested, clinking clanking clattering collection of collagenous junk!
1 Like
Well it is only a subjective opinion of course, but I am fairly sure some posters are looking for things to take offence at, so they can use it as an excuse to avoid addressing anything they know they have no rational or reasonable response to. Ironically they are often baiting atheists almost from their first post, hoping to get a reaction, so they can label posters or even atheists in a generic way. I don’t know what they get from that, perhaps there’s nothing on the telly?
Excellent point, projecting faux outrage because someone has dared point out that their posts are evasive and dishonest is pretty hilarious, when everyone can see their posts are relentlessly evasive and dishonest. Some apologists do seem to want to have their magic cake, and eat it.
One example that made me laugh was when I described the “gospel myths” as anonymous hearsay, and sherlock leaped on it, and immediately tried to claim it was bias and a closed mind to assume they were myths a priori. When I asked him which part of “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events” didn’t apply to the gospels, he refused to even acknowledge his claim after that, and I asked several times, confirming each time he didn’t know what the definition of a myth was, and had made an assumption, before checking. I have had very similar (over)reactions to the word superstition, and again when the actual definition is offered, it all goes quiet. Ironic really, given it has never been easier or quicker to check the definition of a word, there’s not really any excuse for making such simple errors. I always assumed they avoided acknowledging such errors out of embarrassment, but then they go and do it again completely unabashed. so who knows.
1 Like
I agree with this whole heartedly. Specifically when dealing with creationists in my experience. The pearl clutching is just the most infuriatingly cringy thing to me. Their religion has become a person, religion is an innocent defenseless character to them. It becomes this weird imaginary child they need to protect. Once you have questioned or mocked their “child” they throw themselves into this hammed up routine. Like some soccer player rolling on the field pretending his leg is snapped in half to garner some sympathy from the imaginary referee. I would swear it is part self aggrandizing. It’s like their own weird display of mental martyrdom for their imaginary god referee thingy, that they think is watching them at all times.
Maybe off topic, but does anyone think some of these people misplace their own inner mental dialogue (whatever the more scientific terminology is) as divine? That their intrusive thoughts are seen as a message from something divine.
3 Likes
Hah, yeah. Over at another forum, a christian apologist once told me off by saying “people like you are the reason we have blasphemy laws!” I then felt a certain sensation of “mission accomplished!” 
3 Likes
I will always get mad and offended when someone makes a racist, homophobic, sexist, remark about anyone.
1 Like
That really is the most absurd thing to me also. An all powerful god needs man made laws to protect it…?
1 Like
I use to, unfortunately it started taking a noticeable toll on my health. Working in factories it is pretty much a daily if not hourly occurrence for someone to speak some absolutely foul thing from the shallow depths of their mind. I think being exposed to it near constantly makes some of use more dead to it. If I got mad at every comment I wouldn’t be able to accomplish a single thing in an my 8 hour work day. It is most certainly not right, unfortunately it’s our sick reality. I fucking loathe society as a whole almost every day. I wish I could live in a cave on a mountain far away. Unfortunately I can’t, so some of us just have to become a little dead inside just to carry on. It’s a gross sacrifice for some in my opinion. I wish I could always get mad, but I personally can’t.
1 Like
We had one apologist who sticks in my memory, who had a real hissy fit because atheists would not capitalise the word god, it was in vain to explain to that person that since atheists didn’t believe in a single deity, then it was not being used as a proper noun. The poster did their best to try and dictate to everyone how others should spell it, and of course then projected their own hurt ego, by insisting it was a deliberate attempt to intentionally cause offence. I seem to remember the language getting a bit colourful at that point. Someone, it may have been me, linked a well known scene from a famous Monty Python film set in ancient Palestine, where someone told their wife, “That fish was good enough for Jehovah”, it didn’t go across as well as I’d hoped, ah well you can take a theist to humour, but…I’m struggling to find a metaphor…
4 Likes