There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity. An atheist can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER say that the crusades were "wrong", because no such category exists for atheists. For the atheist, there are merely different ethical theories that would approach an issue of the morality of the crusades differently.
Atheists break with their belief system when they try to argue that there is some objective standard against which they can argue the Bible is a book of violence and genocide. For the atheist, these categories have no moral authority.
Atheists who want to be consistent with their beliefs would prove their ethical categories before they attacked the Bible.
There's a claim made here.
There is no "morality" without God? Is this what you are saying?
Yes, that is what I am saying. What is the morality without God? If someone says "genocide is wrong", what do those words refer to? Why should anyone care?
And if there is a morality that emerges, how do you know which one to follow? How do you know to follow the ones that disagree with the Bible, verses the ones that agree with it? Can you just pick the ones that disagree?
If morality supersedes god, then "man's" morality far away exceeds gods, for the gods cannot sacrifice themselves for the pure act of selfless sacrifice, whereas humanity has proven itself not just willing but eager. God(s) have no right nor reason to judge humanity.
Quote from: "aitm"God(s) have no right nor reason to judge humanity.
Prove it.
I already did
Quote from: "augustine"Quote from: "aitm"God(s) have no right nor reason to judge humanity.
Prove it.
The burden of proof lies on you my friend. There's two problems with your statement.
A. We do not accept the existence of God/Gods
B. The person making the claim always has the burden of proof
So in order to make a sound argument, you would first need to present evidence of the existence of God and then evidence that God is a "morality" giver.
But you are making a claim against the Bible, that the Bible is genocidal, misogynistic, etc. Prove that standard is valid. I am not talking about whether God exists or not, I talking about the morality of atheists.
If God does not exist, the atheist still requires some ground for their criticisms of Christianity. They still must have a reason to reject the Christian God.
Where did I make a claim against the bible?
That is the hallmark of the atheist movement, to claim the Bible is genocidal, misogynistic, fascistic, etc. Atheists routinely make those claims, in fact I have seen them on this board.
Okay, but where did I make a claim?
augustine you left the chat before you could tell me what cereal you liked.
auggie tries to claim that "god" is the giver of morality, I have proven otherwise and she left.
aitm you are complaining about Christian approaches to philosophy of religion? I will take the lack of a serious response as a lack of understanding.
Quote from: "augustine"If God does not exist, the atheist still requires some ground for their criticisms of Christianity. They still must have a reason to reject the Christian God.
Is the fact that there is no evidence for the reliability of the bible not suitable for criticizing christianity?????
No, I am saying that humans are more moral than any god by the willingness to sacrifice everything for nothing, whereas a god cannot as much as sacrifice nothing for anything. Humanity has a morality that far exceeds that of any god. Therefor as the idea, the concept of morality encompasses even the "gods", humanity has morals that exceeds any gods. We are superior to any god.
Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity. An atheist can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER say that the crusades were "wrong", because no such category exists for atheists. For the atheist, there are merely different ethical theories that would approach an issue of the morality of the crusades differently.
Yes, actually. First and foremost, it is EASY to point out that the crusades are a form of hypocrisy. That alone destroys any credibility a Christian has. Beyond that, murder IS universally accepted, beyond ALL religious boundaries, to be wrong. The only real differences of opinion on when it is acceptable to kill another human being are in cases of differing superstitions. Since the atheist rejects ALL superstition, there is no superstition, including Christian ones, that justify the killing. Finally, free will is universally accepted as a virtue as well, and killing to deny this freedom and forcing a religious conversion undermines even this basic right. For all of these reasons, your argument falls falt.
QuoteAtheists break with their belief system when they try to argue that there is some objective standard against which they can argue the Bible is a book of violence and genocide. For the atheist, these categories have no moral authority.
Strawman. It's not universally accepted by atheists that there is an objective moral standard. Neither does there need to be one for me personally to say that your religion violates my conscience by offending my own morals. I need not convince you that your wrong to accept that opinion for myself.
QuoteAtheists who want to be consistent with their beliefs would prove their ethical categories before they attacked the Bible.
Christians who want to be consistent with their beliefs need to accept the fact that killing to spread their religion is against the principles of love they claim to be upholding as well as violating the free will precept so important to basis of "sin".
Quote from: "augustine"They still must have a reason to reject the Christian God.
There is no reasonable argument in favor of the existence of gods. This is all I need to reject claims of their existence. The immorality and the internal inconsistency of the Christian position is just icing on that cake.
Christians claim that god demands allegiance to the first commandment while conveniently forgetting that this same god then demands his followers disregard the first commandment by butchering and raping infants and children. God has no morality and christians nor jews have no right to suggest otherwise.
ahh, I hear the flutter of pages as auggie scrambles for retorts to his demise.
Quote from: "augustine"Yes, that is what I am saying. What is the morality without God? If someone says "genocide is wrong", what do those words refer to? Why should anyone care?
Our lives. We don't kill other people out of respect for others. I value my life and realize others value theirs. We do it because taking someone's life just isn't cool.
The notion that you need a higher power to fear in order to be a good person is asinine.
Quote from: "augustine"Yes, that is what I am saying. What is the morality without God? If someone says "genocide is wrong", what do those words refer to? Why should anyone care?
You should care because we as human beings are capable of knowing that killing people is wrong. I do not need a god to tell me that murder is wrong in order to stop myself from being a serial killer. My sense of morality is rooted mostly in the golden rule. I treat others how I would like to be treated and that is the basis of my morality. You may say that the golden rule is a religious concept but you would be wrong because, while many religions profess the golden rule, the golden rule is not inherently religious. The fact that some people need to believe in a higher power for them to know that homicide and the like are wrong speaks many more volumes about their morality than it does about mine. I know not to commit heinous crimes and the like because my personal understanding of common sense and morality dictates those things as being absolutely unacceptable. For some people, the only thing holding them back from doing these things is the fear they have of whatever god they happen to believe in, that's pretty fucked up if you ask me.
ah that the problem with "our" understanding of it Rasputin this jit claims that we get our morality from HIS god...period.... forget the idea that as we are already superior to gods morality that that must prove we cannot be his creations as we exceed "his" omnipotence.
Maybe we do get out morality from his god. The fact that this god would grant us morality free of charge, but not grant us belief in the same way, then punish us for lacking the belief he withheld from us, however, is very telling about this gods own personal morality.
nice point butt....er....finger..
Quote from: "Navynukeman"Quote from: "augustine"If God does not exist, the atheist still requires some ground for their criticisms of Christianity. They still must have a reason to reject the Christian God.
Is the fact that there is no evidence for the reliability of the bible not suitable for criticizing christianity?????
There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible. I have been in seminary libraries where there are millions and millions of books devoted to the academic study of the Bible. Go online and look up Bruce Metzger or FF Bruce or someone like that. There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible.
Of course this completely ignores the original points.
Quote from: "augustine"There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible. I have been in seminary libraries where there are millions and millions of books devoted to the academic study of the Bible. Go online and look up Bruce Metzger or FF Bruce or someone like that. There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible.
There may be tons of books
claiming that the bible is reliable and often these kind of books cite the bible itself as the source for proving the bible's reliability. You can't prove something by referencing what you're proving.
Quote from: "augustine"There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible. I have been in seminary libraries where there are millions and millions of books devoted to the academic study of the Bible. Go online and look up Bruce Metzger or FF Bruce or someone like that. There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible.
The academic consensus on the Bible is that it is a book of man, written and edited for political purposes, a few exceptional scholars notwithstanding.
Quote from: "augustine"If God does not exist, the atheist still requires some ground for their criticisms of Christianity.
On the contrary, it's
because God doesn't (provably) exist that
allows us to levy these criticisms at Christianity, because if the actors performing them was not God or people authorized by any being but God, they would be horrible, despicable acts. Denying God robs you of the basis for your disgusting divine command authority bullshit.
"Christian morality" is nothing more than the natural moral sense that humans come (mostly) pre-equipped with, that Christians disingenuously lay claim to and introduce serious distortions into.
To the original point of the thread: morality is inherently subjective, and it is even treated as such by those who believe the Bible.
Morality is an agreed upon societal contract. Standards of moral conduct have existed down through time, before your religion existed as well. Better read your bible. The moral standard in it includes the allowance of rape and murder or execution for such things as blasphemy and missing church on sunday.
Quote from: "augustine"If God does not exist (..) They still must have a reason to reject the Christian God.
Lol. Well done my friend.
Could it be that he does not exist is a sufficient reason to reject him?
[spoil:37bjn1un]Furthermore your christian god is a prick.[/spoil:37bjn1un]
Quote from: "augustine"Quote from: "aitm"God(s) have no right nor reason to judge humanity.
Prove it.
Oops, you appear to have made a logical fallacy and shifted the burden of proof.
In order to demonstrate that morality derives from divine guidance, you need to:
1. Define your god including all its attributes to a sufficient standard
2. Then prove that said god has created and instilled said morality into humanity on an equal and, above all, tangible basis (you are making a claim that this is true, so it must be verifiable and testable).
Please do so:
Also explain moral behaviour in people before god entered the picture, as there are countless civilizations that did not follow your god and still had morals, as well as a number of civilizations that have existed since before your god claims to have created the world that had morals.
Quote from: "augustine"And if there is a morality that emerges, how do you know which one to follow? How do you know to follow the ones that disagree with the Bible, verses the ones that agree with it? Can you just pick the ones that disagree?
How do you know to follow the Bible and not the Quran, Torah, Bagavadgita, etc? Which god's morality is absolute? If you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that your religion depends more on your parents and your place of birth.
Furthermore, which of your chosen gods' rules are absolute? I can show you that slavery is ok, using the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Quran. Do you believe slavery is morally wrong? How did we arrive at the conclusion that slavery is wrong if god doesn't tell us so?
Quote from: "augustine"Quote from: "Navynukeman"Quote from: "augustine"If God does not exist, the atheist still requires some ground for their criticisms of Christianity. They still must have a reason to reject the Christian God.
Is the fact that there is no evidence for the reliability of the bible not suitable for criticizing christianity?????
There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible. I have been in seminary libraries where there are millions and millions of books devoted to the academic study of the Bible. Go online and look up Bruce Metzger or FF Bruce or someone like that. There is tons of evidence for the reliability of the Bible.
Of course this completely ignores the original points.
There is tons of evidence that the bible is a book that demonstrates the cultural and religious point of view, as people were back then, with much poetry and ridiculous instructions, nothing more. Almost all the information analyzed show that all the gospels were written by dozens of people (if not more) and adulterated. Archaeology has shown inconsistencies with many episodes described as facts; and logic coupled with our current knowledge shows that there is unprecedented childish drivel, like the tower of Babel and Noah's ark, for example. The bible is as reliable as the magazines from Marvel, but the magazines are much nicer!
Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity.
You are fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking stupid.
Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity. An atheist can NEVER, NEVER, NEVER say that the crusades were "wrong", because no such category exists for atheists. For the atheist, there are merely different ethical theories that would approach an issue of the morality of the crusades differently.
Atheists break with their belief system when they try to argue that there is some objective standard against which they can argue the Bible is a book of violence and genocide. For the atheist, these categories have no moral authority.
Atheists who want to be consistent with their beliefs would prove their ethical categories before they attacked the Bible.
There is no morality in theism. Theism does not equal Christianity. Theism is not a moral system or a worldview. Neither is atheism. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Humanism is an atheistic philosophy centered on a moral system, address that.
Quote from: "wolf39us"Where did I make a claim against the bible?
He's talking to the atheist he had in his head when he decided to start the thread.
Quote from: "augustine"That is the hallmark of the atheist movement, to claim the Bible is genocidal, misogynistic, fascistic, etc. Atheists routinely make those claims, in fact I have seen them on this board.
There isn't an atheist movement. There are a variety of movements that atheists are prominent in, but none of those (the secularist movement, the skeptics movement, the atheist rights movement, even the humanist movement) are exclusively atheist. It makes no more sense to say there's an atheist movement (I know, many atheists say there's such a movement as well) than to say there's a theist movement. It is the essence of bigotry to think you can generalize about people from knowing only one of their opinions.
Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism
Of course there isn't. An atheist is a person that has no belief in gods.
Quote from: "stromboli"Morality is an agreed upon societal contract.
Not really. Laws are. Morals are cultural and often personal. The contract exists in the form of laws, which have penalties for breaking them. There is not necessarily any penalty for behaving immorally, and often the immoral act is legal.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity.
You are fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking stupid.
What a well-reasoned, thought-provoking, well written, and compelling argument.
In case you didn't get that, I was being sarcastic. That post is no better than apologist spam, and in some ways is worse.
Sure didn't take very long after the database reset for this dumb topic to pop up again. :roll:
Quote from: "buttfinger"Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity.
You are fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking stupid.
What a well-reasoned, thought-provoking, well written, and compelling argument.
In case you didn't get that, I was being sarcastic. That post is no better than apologist spam, and in some ways is worse.
I was thinking the same thing butt lol
But actually, he is right. By definition, there is no moral imperative in atheism. Moral imperative doesn't come from not believing in something. His reasoning why is totally wrong, but atheism by and of itself is not a reason for, or motivator of, moral conduct. Just semantics, but that is the case. But you can also argue that moral imperative in religion is if anything more subjective and highly forced, based on judgmental dogma. Any moral code or implied moral behavior outside of religion is based on common understanding and experience over time.
Oh, and augustine, aka jstrodel aka Joseph. Sockpuppets are rude and against the rules. Bye.
oh shizzle! I didn't even think to look up the ip address!
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Sure didn't take very long after the database reset for this dumb topic to pop up again. :roll:
Where's the little bang-head-against-wall guy?
meawhile
(//http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/SabrinaTheInkWitch/7a909e77.jpg)
now let's see how long it take before someone comes along to correct my unPC behavior?
Thankfully there's no moral imperative in atheism and unfortunately there is t in religions, like Christianity for example, claiming that a "creator" gave us free will and then condemn us eternally if we want to like him!
Quote from: "buttfinger"Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity.
You are fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking stupid.
What a well-reasoned, thought-provoking, well written, and compelling argument.
In case you didn't get that, I was being sarcastic. That post is no better than apologist spam, and in some ways is worse.
And it's more than that cunt deserves.
YAY! Our first troll after the Great Crash of 2013 (as it will be forever known in the history books) has already come and gone! (^0^)/ No morality without God? That's an argument that hardly ever comes up. ?_?
Quote from: "buttfinger"Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "augustine"There is no moral imperative in atheism, so you cannot logically argue against the crimes of Christianity.
You are fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking stupid.
What a well-reasoned, thought-provoking, well written, and compelling argument.
In case you didn't get that, I was being sarcastic. That post is no better than apologist spam, and in some ways is worse.
Wait whut?
Are you saying apologist spam is as truthfull as what Antititties said?
I think its fine if the religiotard leaves for too long to post that stuff. It's true. And its not as if it interrupted an intense argument...
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Wait whut?
Are you saying apologist spam is as truthfull as what Antititties said?
No. I think he's just one of those schmucks who thinks reasoning with christians is not a colossal waste of time and that atheism is some kind of cause we need to act as representatives for despite this having no real effect because we're dealing with assholes who've already made up their mind about us.
His life to waste on these mistaken notions if he wants to. I don't intend to waste any more of my time.
Quote from: "ApostateLois"YAY! Our first troll after the Great Crash of 2013 (as it will be forever known in the history books) has already come and gone! (^0^)/ No morality without God? That's an argument that hardly ever comes up. ?_?
R.O.F.L.M.A.O.
Lois- Classic- hysterical as always!
(//http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/SabrinaTheInkWitch/2ajuv6e.gif)
WitchSabrina,
This guy should be the secretary of U.S. culture (don't know if the term is correct)
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Wait whut?
Are you saying apologist spam is as truthfull as what Antititties said?
No, but it's got more thought put into it and is written better.
Quote from: "Mathias"WitchSabrina,
This guy should be the secretary of U.S. culture (don't know if the term is correct)
Our gov doesn't have enough $$$ to get Jon Stewart on staff - for anything.
*snort*
I just noticed I'm an Alphadon. What the fuck is an Alphadon? First Godfather?
Quote from: "stromboli"I just noticed I'm an Alphadon. What the fuck is an Alphadon? First Godfather?
I like that answer - First (Top) Grandpapa LMAO- But if that were true there'd be no advance after the Alphadon. And there is other stages to reach so............
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Wait whut?
Are you saying apologist spam is as truthfull as what Antititties said?
No. I think he's just one of those schmucks who thinks reasoning with christians is not a colossal waste of time and that atheism is some kind of cause we need to act as representatives for despite this having no real effect because we're dealing with assholes who've already made up their mind about us.
His life to waste on these mistaken notions if he wants to. I don't intend to waste any more of my time.
lol, you don't know Buttfinger.
Perhaps you should wait and see before opining ... just sayin'. (//http://s5.tinypic.com/2rfca47_th.jpg)
Oh Cheeses. I hadn't caught that. I might laugh all night. I love being misunderstood like that.
I look on lying or preaching fallacies as being "immoral", which is what Christianity is guilty of consistantly. It is a moral imperative IMHO not to put religion higher than truth. A moral imperative not to go on preaching the Earth was created 6000 years ago in spite of the overwhealming evidence agaist it.
Damn. Missed it. I've never understood the "why should we care about each other if there is no god?" argument.
So in other words: we, who live on this planet with each other, who must do whatever's needed to survive together, and who always come up with a third example when listing things, can't figure out that we should probably treat each other with dignity and respect?
But insert the Bronze Age explanation for why rainbows appear in the sky and, boom, THAT'S why we're good to each other. The entity that we're not sure exists dictates our morality better than we do.
The whole thing smells vaguely of old lady farts.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"lol, you don't know Buttfinger.
And I never will.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"lol, you don't know Buttfinger.
And I never will.
The fact that you're so comfortable speaking in ignorance makes me wonder about the validity of your other judgments, y'know? I mean, I've known the guy online for years, and I know for a fact that you've read him wrong about his views on atheism, specifically this passage:
Quote from: "the_antithesis"[...] he's just one of those schmucks who thinks reasoning with christians is not a colossal waste of time and that atheism is some kind of cause we need to act as representatives for [...]
I agree with him that your "fuckfuckfuck" post was juvenile, and I personally think that if that's the best post you could muster for the occasion, silence would probably serve you better.
That you feel I give a toss what you think is your problem.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"That you feel I give a toss what you think is your problem.
It's clearly less of a problem than your inability to articulate a simple point.
Quote from: "the_antithesis"That you feel I give a toss what you think is your problem.
I don't think you think much at all, really, but insofar as you
do think, your overweening arrogance probably pollutes the process so far as to make it useless.
At least, that's what I've seen here.
Ta-ta, kid.
Who ever thought "religious ignorance" = "a moral imperative". I would have thought it would be quite the contrary.
You're just as retarded as he is. Nobody claimed what you said. Learn to read, fucknut.
Quote from: "buttfinger"You're just as retarded as he is. Nobody claimed what you said. Learn to read, fucknut.
Hey buddy.
Wait let me start over.
Hey fuckface.
Ive been reading some of your posts. You are projecting some poorly hidden and desperate need to establish yourself as better and smarter than anyone else here. But guess what? Youre just some angry kid on a forum full of people smarter than you.
Get lost.
Quote from: "buttfinger"You're just as retarded as he is. Nobody claimed what you said. Learn to read, fucknut.
Whoa! Did you come here to spout insults because you don't allow it on your own forum?
This is bullshit. Either you believe in "attacks" or you don't. Way
not cool. Eesh
Hi dickwad. I'm not trying to establish myself as anything. I DID try to have some nice conversations, but you retards showed very early on that disagreement will be met with ad-hominems, so all I'm doing now is just posting in the flavor of the rest of the forum. Don't like it? Too fucking bad. You should have thought about that before you set the tone.
Quote from: "buttfinger"Hi dickwad. I'm not trying to establish myself as anything. I DID try to have some nice conversations, but you retards showed very early on that disagreement will be met with ad-hominems, so all I'm doing now is just posting in the flavor of the rest of the forum. Don't like it? Too fucking bad. You should have thought about that before you set the tone.
If this ^ is in response to me you've not really addressed my post. Kind of ridiculous. Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning? Why call me names? I'm sorry but what exactly did I do to You?
Guy walks into a forum.
Comments on everything.
Finds areas of disagreement.
Gets rattled.
Starts losing self control.
Goes berserk.
Quote from: "buttfinger"Hi dickwad. I'm not trying to establish myself as anything. I DID try to have some nice conversations, but you retards showed very early on that disagreement will be met with ad-hominems, so all I'm doing now is just posting in the flavor of the rest of the forum. Don't like it? Too fucking bad. You should have thought about that before you set the tone.
You actually made a few worthwhile points before you started acting so childishly.
This is just sad now.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Quote from: "buttfinger"Hi dickwad. I'm not trying to establish myself as anything. I DID try to have some nice conversations, but you retards showed very early on that disagreement will be met with ad-hominems, so all I'm doing now is just posting in the flavor of the rest of the forum. Don't like it? Too fucking bad. You should have thought about that before you set the tone.
If this ^ is in response to me you've not really addressed my post. Kind of ridiculous. Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning? Why call me names? I'm sorry but what exactly did I do to You?
No, he is doing it to everyone in every thread.
Wow. Count me surprised.
*sigh*
wtf?
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"If this ^ is in response to me you've not really addressed my post. Kind of ridiculous. Someone pee in your cornflakes this morning? Why call me names? I'm sorry but what exactly did I do to You?
No maam. You're one of the few here who isn't a total shithead. In fact, I kinda like you (in a forum-post kind of way). I was addressing the asshole directly above that post. The name-calling is just a response to being called names in the first place.
Okay obviously this thread has turned into a very unproductive one.
I think it's time for a lock...