The Al Realpolitik Institute of Sulfur Mining & Extraction

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

'You' is BS Bob.

Well, I guess this has some vague parallel relation to SC-01...just as Sanford's mistress was a homewrecker, you seem to relish the role of being a threadwrecker.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Miles is on a roll.

[courts]

When I quickly saw your username, I thought you were Bacon King. I read your post and was greatly concerned. I was shocked BK would say something so asinine. I was relieved to realize it was a child and not him.

jesus that was brutal.

[Paul Kemp]

Ready for lunch, yet?

Goodness, you must be ready for dinner, no?

What does this mean? Is this Bushie's super lame attempt to be clever in tackling critics?

It's probably something subconscious.  He's really the only person I know who could be ready for dinner 18 minutes after he ate lunch.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's a negative?

I'll defer to your judgment, since you are clearly the greatest expert on negativity we've ever had.

Did you miss the Buono/McGreevey/Codey/Corzine legislative history?

Did you miss the Krazen1211 posting history?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

DC Al Fine lays the smackdown, and although I think HockeyDude's a great guy in most ways I have to say this particular set of posts kind of had it coming:

After religion is destroyed, greed by and large will be destroyed.  Most people are naturally benevolent, they need religion/superstition/junk science to feel they have a superior standing than others and therefore justify their greed.

This is backwards, of course. People are naturally self-centred and need society to teach them otherwise.

Plenty aren't. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For an atheist, you sure don't seem to put much stock in scientifically conducted research.

What scientifically conducted research?

The most religious Americans actually give more money to secular causes than do secular Americans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And how many "secular" Americans are there?

If you had actually bothered to read the article or the quote I provided, you would have noticed that the authors of the study divided the sample into quintiles from least to most religious. That means the secular and religious samples compared are equal size

Ehhh... go buy your way into heaven/do it because you are told if you like, whether you like it or not that's what guides the good deeds of most religious people.  If the ends justify the means, good for you.  I don't agree.

Unfounded assertion is unfounded

I just don't understand the complete lack of equality in the matter.  The religiouses are allowed to advertise their belief system as the humanity's salvation... but us atheists aren't allowed to do the same?

Nonsense. You're allowed to defend atheism and have done so on many occasions...poorly.

I genuinely believe atheism/agnosticism/secularism is what will save humanity.  That's why I believe in it so strongly. 

A sound and coherent argument if there ever was one.

More bigotry against atheists from the Atlas, but that's to be expected.  Every minority has to deal with BS. 

No. You make unfounded and bigoted assertions against religion and when someone presens contrary evidence you launch into hysterics about some persecution of atheists that only exists in your head.

Religion helps equalize people, and helps people become more charitable... the person a few posts above has it completely backwards.

LOL!  I won't entertain anything that has the words "religion" and "help" in the same sentence... much less "religion" and "equalize".  Yea... when I think equality I think religion. 

Ladies and gentleman. The open minded atheist!

[Antonio the Sixth]

I genuinely believe atheism/agnosticism/secularism is what will save humanity.  That's why I believe in it so strongly. 

A sound and coherent argument if there ever was one.

Wow, I hadn't noticed that gem.

[Keystone Phil]

I've always gotten along with HockeyDude but after that little act, it seems like he's proving to have the typical mental capacity of his username.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Context:

You mean, 'I and the rest of the training associates had a huge debate about this yesterday'.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Goteem:

NEVER. Simple as that. If SCOTUS rules stupid in the next few weeks Pence will refuse to honor the ruling (and would be right to not honor the ruling). In other words it would take military force. It will be permabanned next November if SCOTUS rules smartly. Kansas won't stand alone in its fight to honor traditional values.

I didn't realize your state elected a king instead of a governor.

[DemPGH]

Hmm. So basically when the religionists get offended because someone performs some rather unique analysis that throws them into fits of dissonance, they come dump it here and try to pillory, in a manner of speaking, the individual? No surprise. Very expected behavior, I must say, if History is to be any guide.

There's a book called Why People Believe Strange Things, and it goes into all sorts of things, religion being one. If someone is going to believe strange things, I find it odd that they would be so hyper sensitive.

[politicus]

Hmm. So basically when the religionists get offended because someone performs some rather unique analysis that throws them into fits of dissonance, they come dump it here and try to pillory, in a manner of speaking, the individual? No surprise. Very expected behavior, I must say, if History is to be any guide.

There's a book called Why People Believe Strange Things, and it goes into all sorts of things, religion being one. If someone is going to believe strange things, I find it odd that they would be so hyper sensitive.

There are plenty of intelligent and coherent ways to make the atheist case, as David (DC) showed this "unique analysis" wasnt one of them.

[Paul Kemp]

I'm not sure those critical of said posts would be best defined as "religionists."

[afleitch]

Hmm. So basically when the religionists get offended because someone performs some rather unique analysis that throws them into fits of dissonance, they come dump it here and try to pillory, in a manner of speaking, the individual? No surprise. Very expected behavior, I must say, if History is to be any guide.

There's a book called Why People Believe Strange Things, and it goes into all sorts of things, religion being one. If someone is going to believe strange things, I find it odd that they would be so hyper sensitive.

There are plenty of intelligent and coherent ways to make the atheist case, as David (DC) showed this "unique analysis" wasnt one of them.

I think that point was not necessarily with what HockeyDude was saying, but DC's 'rebuttal' which was equally as poorly crafted.

[politicus]

Hmm. So basically when the religionists get offended because someone performs some rather unique analysis that throws them into fits of dissonance, they come dump it here and try to pillory, in a manner of speaking, the individual? No surprise. Very expected behavior, I must say, if History is to be any guide.

There's a book called Why People Believe Strange Things, and it goes into all sorts of things, religion being one. If someone is going to believe strange things, I find it odd that they would be so hyper sensitive.

There are plenty of intelligent and coherent ways to make the atheist case, as David (DC) showed this "unique analysis" wasnt one of them.

I think that point was not necessarily with what HockeyDude was saying, but DC's 'rebuttal' which was equally as poorly crafted.

Unique analysis can only refer to HockeyDude and there is no way DCs rebuttal was poorly crafted. It was sharp and to the point.

[DemPGH]

I just thought that HockeyDude's comments were not NEARLY outlandish enough to warrant picking up the Christian flag, planting it here, and declaring him the bad guy. But it's all relative - around me and my social circle the contents of what he said are just harmless thoughts (and so I try to hold way back on this forum). DC, though, I thought, was similarly emotional and direct - it was just a slightly agitated exchange, that's all.

[Paul Kemp]

I really don't understand how putting a post in a thread about good comebacks or "burns" labels someone a "bad guy."

Perhaps if this was The Deluge that would be understandable...

[DemPGH]

I just thought that HockeyDude's comments were not NEARLY outlandish enough to warrant picking up the Christian flag, planting it here, and declaring him the bad guy.

Don't look at me.

Ha, I wasn't.

I just thought that HockeyDude's comments were not NEARLY outlandish enough to warrant picking up the Christian flag, planting it here, and declaring him the bad guy.

As a pagan, I don't even have a Christian flag to pick up. I just know how to spot twat atheists with ease after associating with them for so long.

As in a polytheist? Interesting. The irony of that is that we both would be convicted of witchcraft, heresy, blasphemy, and probably treason (none of which would have a very pretty end), and for really opposite reasons!

I really don't understand how putting a post in a thread about good comebacks or "burns" labels someone a "bad guy."

Perhaps if this was The Deluge that would be understandable...

No, it just rankled me a bit. The context is, "An atheist running his mouth got beat down - good, get him!" which really wasn't the case, but in any event, it's like when someone dumps something in here or the Deluge and says, "Look what THIS jerk said now" - a lot of it is, so what? Are some folks who do this dumping just really closeted, extremely young, or something else? That's all. Now there are some good things in the Irony Ore or Mine or whatever, yes.

[Badger]

2. It's not surprising at all that neither Marokai nor Antonio bothered to make any sort of substantial argument.

What?!? MB itemized, link by link, statement by statement, direct compelling documentation of EVERY allegation. How much more 'substantive' an argument can one present??

I mean this litterally and without an ounce of hyperbole: WTF are you talking about?

[rejectamenta]

No, it just rankled me a bit. The context is, "An atheist running his mouth got beat down - good, get him!" which really wasn't the case, but in any event, it's like when someone dumps something in here or the Deluge and says, "Look what THIS jerk said now" - a lot of it is, so what? Are some folks who do this dumping just really closeted, extremely young, or something else? That's all. Now there are some good things in the Irony Ore or Mine or whatever, yes.

I agree. There are some diamonds in the rough, but I think a culture of posting increasingly mundane content while turning the theatrical exasperation knob up to eleven to compensate has emerged in some of these threads.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

2. It's not surprising at all that neither Marokai nor Antonio bothered to make any sort of substantial argument.

What?!? MB itemized, link by link, statement by statement, direct compelling documentation of EVERY allegation. How much more 'substantive' an argument can one present??

I mean this litterally and without an ounce of hyperbole: WTF are you talking about?

I think he was talking about Marokai and Antonio's statements about him.    In any case, this argument has run its course so don't feel like you need to resurrect it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2. It's not surprising at all that neither Marokai nor Antonio bothered to make any sort of substantial argument.

What?!? MB itemized, link by link, statement by statement, direct compelling documentation of EVERY allegation. How much more 'substantive' an argument can one present??

I mean this litterally and without an ounce of hyperbole: WTF are you talking about?

I think he was talking about Marokai and Antonio's statements about him.    In any case, this argument has run its course so don't feel like you need to resurrect it.

Because A Person's critique is very much based on facts and logical argumentation...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

2. It's not surprising at all that neither Marokai nor Antonio bothered to make any sort of substantial argument.

What?!? MB itemized, link by link, statement by statement, direct compelling documentation of EVERY allegation. How much more 'substantive' an argument can one present??

I mean this litterally and without an ounce of hyperbole: WTF are you talking about?

I think he was talking about Marokai and Antonio's statements about him.    In any case, this argument has run its course so don't feel like you need to resurrect it.

Because A Person's critique is very much based on facts and logical argumentation...

I think baseless personal attacks are deserving of a bit more scrutiny than other types of statements. 
But that's just because I'm a horrible moderate hero with no controversial opinions. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

2. It's not surprising at all that neither Marokai nor Antonio bothered to make any sort of substantial argument.

What?!? MB itemized, link by link, statement by statement, direct compelling documentation of EVERY allegation. How much more 'substantive' an argument can one present??

I mean this litterally and without an ounce of hyperbole: WTF are you talking about?

I think he was talking about Marokai and Antonio's statements about him.    In any case, this argument has run its course so don't feel like you need to resurrect it.

Because A Person's critique is very much based on facts and logical argumentation...

I think baseless personal attacks are deserving of a bit more scrutiny than other types of statements. 
But that's just because I'm a horrible moderate hero with no controversial opinions. 

You have a very odd definition of baseless, but whatever.

[Marokai Backbeat]

My only regret about that post was that I didn't include homophobic, as well.

Edit: or that I could've pointed out the other multiple instances of Koenkai calling random stuff racist.