A Debate: Augusto vs. Lucifer - Commentary Thread

[One Above All]

Lucifer, can you keep posting stuff in the thread for our continued entertainment?

I see no reason to. Eventually I'd run out of mistakes to find.

And cuss all you want. It turns some of us on.

Well, when you put it like that...

[RNS]

I have been following this closely. Your two main points seem to be that videos aren't allowed and that lucifer used certain words that you weren't happy with.

1) both of you have to follow the video rule. It's not like HAL thinks this is some clever ruse to discredit your arguments in favour of atheism.
no one is going to watch an hour long documentary anyway. Do you not see that posting your interpretations of the videos will be much more effective than just posting a video anway?
2) these words were not directed at you and in my opinion were not unwarranted. If he believes a source to be *insert word here* then should he not have the right to express that? If you have a problem with it, you should address that in your next post in the debate, explaining why that source isn't *insert word here*

It just kind of seems to me as if you have built us up in your head as some kind of alliance that is conspiring against you. This is not the case at all.
I think parkingplaces was spot on earlier and to be honest I didn't really understand your response:

Not my feelings, but each one can understand my words as they see fit to their belief.

can you explain this please?

EDIT: if i was mistaken/missed something and it is actually something else, or stuff in addition to this, that was bothering you, please let me know.

[sun_king]

It is always prudent to verify the sources before you present them. Not all folks are awed by the "science" presented and some of us have always taken the extra step of actually evaluating a claim. IMHO, Lucifer went easy on that website. Any attempts to sneak in BS in the world of knowledge should be handled with even more severity.

So a website is abused and the one defender of god is quitting? That's all after this mega-build up?

[Augusto]

I have been following this closely. Your two main points seem to be that videos aren't allowed and that lucifer used certain words that you weren't happy with.

1) both of you have to follow the video rule. It's not like HAL thinks this is some clever ruse to discredit your arguments in favour of atheism.
no one is going to watch an hour long documentary anyway. Do you not see that posting your interpretations of the videos will be much more effective than just posting a video anway?
2) these words were not directed at you and in my opinion were not unwarranted. If he believes a source to be *insert word here* then should he not have the right to express that? If you have a problem with it, you should address that in your next post in the debate, explaining why that source isn't *insert word here*

It just kind of seems to me as if you have built us up in your head as some kind of alliance that is conspiring against you. This is not the case at all.
I think parkingplaces was spot on earlier and to be honest I didn't really understand your response:

Not my feelings, but each one can understand my words as they see fit to their belief.

can you explain this please?

Well, I came here trying to debate with the comunity about my reasons to believe in God, but people started bashing, insulting, spamming and flamming me, not only with words, but also with negative Darwings, you can check this topic, and reasons why I got in 2 days 10 negative Darwins:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21563.0.html

Now, I asked for a debate with one person and since the very beginning people took it as a joke, regardless of the arguments I gave to explain the importance of such debate, you can see how people react on this topic:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21579.0.html

So, between the bully posts and rush I was forced to pick someone, even against my opinion I choose Lucifer because most people were supporting him to represent them, also certain basic rules were set, those rules were the same as those this comunity "should" follow, and those of a civil debate.

You can also see what was going to be the name of the debate, which I was asked to determine more than once, then the name was arbitrary set, just to mock me. Nevertheless I ignored that and came to reply Lucifer.

After that, a lot of members started bashing in this topic in every single page, nothing was done about it. They critize that I didn't wrote my argument as a "legit" way to dismiss it, and so new rules were born:
- I "shouldn't" post anything that I dont create.
- If I post something from another source I should post a link (even when Lucifer didn't do the same in his first post).
- I cannot post youtube videos (even when this is not in the rules.

On top of that, Lucifer's response was not following the simple rules we set, and he was not penalized for that, when I responded to those facts, my post was deleted, "because it was offtopic" such thing follows an invisible rule, and my post was not offtopic.

What I asked was merely for equality but it was too much to ask.

Why do I say this atheism is like a religion?

Because in this forum, just like in any religious forum, people bash with hate those who hold a different belief, and they're mercilesly undermined with hate and mock. Because they twist rules or logic in favor of their beliefs, and even because there are some people who "advice" not to listen those who think differently.

At the end, people choose to follow atheism, for the most part, based not in reason but in emotions, just like in any religion. And so, my words sound empty and stupid to them, just like christian words can seem just the same to a muslim or a jew. No room for reason, no respect, no decency when comes to protect your beliefs.

Therefore, I consider this to be the worst religion ever, because it have no god and no rules whatsoever, not even rules to break, no room for regret, no nothing but wild actions driven by emotional, brainwashed people.

People have the ability to believe, to follow, and no atheist can avoid being like that. It is present since the beginning of humanity, in every culture. People just "believe in something", so what do I have to say to your beliefs, to your faith? if such "religion" were to take over, world would become anarchy. That's what I think. We need a moral code, and atheists cannot offer that, they cannot even make people free from believing, they will, instead, turn to atheism as their new faith and find it have no system, therefore, anarchy will reign.

Basically, believers think they're superior to others because their religion is true and they will go to heaven, plus, they're not just animals, they're the offpring of God. By the other side, atheist believe they are superior to others because they're smarter, they hold the truth, and the rest are just stupid lambs. Truth is, people is people, and atheists are no different from theists, well, theists have moral codes and try hard to be good.

Moreover, just think of the meaning of Lucifer and I. Think if that's what you want for you and your loved ones. A nick that represents everything that is evil and dirty, no matter what the bible says, Lucifer means evil, and this person uses that nick because atheists have NO RULES, no moral stablished and accepted, and it's not just his nick, but also the way he thinks and acts. To him I am trash, my arguments are trash, and we, believers are inferior.

This is not only supported by him, but pretty much everyone in the comunity agrees with him and acts just the same. This proves my point, turning this "comunity" into a very dangerous one, even more dangerous than muslims. Also, this fits pretty good with prophecies of God. That's right, there are no proofs of God's existence, therefore, follow insanity and ruin your life, but remember: there are no proofs of God's non-existence either.

[ungod]

Okay, I'll start.

There are 4 primary attribute that describe what God would be. If any of these attributes are found in one force, then we can continue on, to see if God is real.

These 4 primary attributes are:

1) Eternal, not involved with the flow of our time.
2) Omnipresent, found everywhere.

If God is " not involved with the flow of our time", i.e. not present in our universe, then He is NOT
" Omnipresent, found everywhere"!

End of debate.

 

[Augusto]

Okay, I'll start.

There are 4 primary attribute that describe what God would be. If any of these attributes are found in one force, then we can continue on, to see if God is real.

These 4 primary attributes are:

1) Eternal, not involved with the flow of our time.
2) Omnipresent, found everywhere.

If God is " not involved with the flow of our time", i.e. not present in our universe, then He is NOT
" Omnipresent, found everywhere"!

End of debate.

 

Clearly you didn't understood the full argument. This "infinite" particle IS present in our timeline.

[Ivellios]

Gravity exists. Gravity has always existed. So therefore Gravity = God.

They both start with 'G!' God's hand at work!

It's a force. Oh, wait, you meant that force... sorry, I'm not a Jedi.

[Augusto]

Thanks for further proving my point and desgrace your nick "TruthSeeker". You're no more lamb than I am.

[One Above All]

Gravity exists. Gravity has always existed. So therefore Gravity = God.

They both start with 'G!' God's hand at work!

It's a force. Oh, wait, you meant that force... sorry, I'm not a Jedi.

Gravity is not a force, per se. Gravity is a side-effect of spacetime distortions caused by particles with mass.

[RNS]

Well, I came here trying to debate with the comunity about my reasons to believe in God, but people started bashing, insulting, spamming and flamming me, not only with words, but also with negative Darwings, you can check this topic, and reasons why I got in 2 days 10 negative Darwins:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21563.0.html

I'll skim through this later

Now, I asked for a debate with one person and since the very beginning people took it as a joke, regardless of the arguments I gave to explain the importance of such debate, you can see how people react on this topic

This thread I actually followed from the beginning. Where are you getting this idea that people took it as a joke etc.? Just because people have a sense of humour and make jokes doesn't mean that they are treating the debate as a joke. If you could give specific examples that would be useful, since I can't find any.

So, between the bully posts and rush I was forced to pick someone, even against my opinion I choose Lucifer because most people were supporting him to represent them

Again, I'd really love to see which posts you are referring to as "bully posts", because I'm not sure which ones you are referring to.
We just wanted to get the debate started! Personally I would have no idea who to choose anyway, the poll would have been a waste of time. Spent so long talking about the debate rather than debating.

You can also see what was going to be the name of the debate, which I was asked to determine more than once, then the name was arbitrary set, just to mock me.

I REALLY don't think that was meant to mock you. The title is in no way mocking.
I'm pretty sure it was chosen just so that you could get started. Although I didn't mention anything, I remember getting a little annoyed about how long everything was taking. I think you were given the opportunity to pick a person and title numerous times before you did either. I'm assuming since you didn't pick one, that is why it was done for you.

After that, a lot of members started bashing in this topic in every single page, nothing was done about it. They critize that I didn't wrote my argument as a "legit" way to dismiss it, and so new rules were born:
- I "shouldn't" post anything that I dont create.
- If I post something from another source I should post a link (even when Lucifer didn't do the same in his first post).
- I cannot post youtube videos (even when this is not in the rules.

There will always be bashing, but people are free to write as they choose here (to a certain extent). If you can't handle it, I would suggest just sticking to the debate thread itself. Just to emphasize, you were not being bashed, it was your arguments and sources. So maybe don't take it so personally, and if you disagree with what they have written, explain exactly why rather than just getting upset about it- that helps neither you nor the person who said those things.

In regards to the posting what you didn't create etc.- It's ok to use other peoples ideas, as long as they are in your own words.
Copying and pasting stuff from the internet is a no no. Didn't you have these rules in school? I thought this was normal.
In the scientific community these rules are even stricter.

Because in this forum, just like in any religious forum, people bash with hate those who hold a different belief, and they're mercilesly undermined with hate and mock.

I'd say it's mainly mock, very little hate. I have seen no hateful responses in this thread or the debate thread. If you could point me to specific examples that would be helpful.

At the end, people choose to follow atheism, for the most part, based not in reason but in emotions, just like in any religion. And so, my words sound empty and stupid to them, just like christian words can seem just the same to a muslim or a jew. No room for reason, no respect, no decency when comes to protect your beliefs.

This is off topic but- Actually this isn't really how it works. I didn't choose to follow atheism, like with religion. My brain simply won't allow me to believe in the gods described in mainstream religions. It's not a concious choice. Just like no matter how hard I try, I can't make myself believe that if I jump off a building I will fly. Did you know that babies are atheists? Because they lack the belief in theistic religion.

Therefore, I consider this to be the worst religion ever, because it have no god and no rules whatsoever, not even rules to break, no room for regret, no nothing but wild actions driven by emotional, brainwashed people.

You really have got it all wrong, mate. Honestly. I have no reason to lie to you. I don't care what you believe in, but you have got us all wrong.

if such "religion" were to take over, world would become anarchy. That's what I think. We need a moral code, and atheists cannot offer that, they cannot even make people free from believing, they will, instead, turn to atheism as their new faith and find it have no system, therefore, anarchy will reign.

Erm... you know there exist things such as the legal system, which have little to do with religion. How did we (as humanity) come up with these rules and regulations? We didn't look to the bible/quran to help us out, that's for sure. Animals have morality systems- did Jesus teach them this?

Moreover, just think of the meaning of Lucifer and I. Think if that's what you want for you and your loved ones. A nick that represents everything that is evil and dirty, no matter what the bible says, Lucifer means evil, and this person uses that nick because atheists have NO RULES, no moral stablished and accepted, and it's not just his nick, but also the way he thinks and acts. To him I am trash, my arguments are trash, and we, believers are inferior.

This is not only supported by him, but pretty much everyone in the comunity agrees with him and acts just the same. This proves my point, turning this "comunity" into a very dangerous one, even more dangerous than muslims. Also, this fits pretty good with prophecies of God. That's right, there are no proofs of God's existence, therefore, follow insanity and ruin your life, but remember: there are no proofs of God's non-existence either.

Wow! These are some pretty full-on claims! Just because we don't believe in your god doesn't make us savages. If you actually bothered to ask us what we (individually, since we don't all believe the same things, because atheism is NOT a religion) believe, then you would realise that actually we don't promote anarchy.

even more dangerous than muslims

...seriously??!

[sun_king]

People have the ability to believe, to follow, and no atheist can avoid being like that. It is present since the beginning of humanity, in every culture. People just "believe in something", so what do I have to say to your beliefs, to your faith? if such "religion" were to take over, world would become anarchy. That's what I think. We need a moral code, and atheists cannot offer that, they cannot even make people free from believing, they will, instead, turn to atheism as their new faith and find it have no system, therefore, anarchy will reign.

Just out of interest, did this forum ever get a good apologist who had something on his/her own?

Is Augusto speaking of the moral code that defines how to treat your slaves, how to punish them, when to sell your daughters, when to trade the virginity of your daughters to protect two strangers?

[jaimehlers]

Augusto, you need to stop using Lucifer's language and the fact that you took offense at some things as an excuse to quit the debate.  People do swear at each other sometimes.  I'm sometimes the recipient of some pretty nasty language from people here.  So what?  You don't encourage civility in others by complaining about its lack, unless you have the power to enforce it.  And even if you somehow did, all you'd accomplish would be for them to figure out how to be uncivil under the pretense of civil language.  Your best bet, in fact, the only bet, is to be civil back, whether or not you feel they deserve it.  If you're always civil in return, it reflects well on you, and it illustrates the difference without ever actually pointing it out.

Same thing with getting upset at the treatment you're getting here.  You have to recognize that this is a community, and you're a stranger to it.  Humans react to strangers with suspicion and the equivalent of puffing up their chests to look tough.  It's not especially fair, but you won't make it so by complaining about it and demanding that your idea of fair is what should apply.  Even if you're a respected and well-known member of the community, such behavior is not going to go over well.  For someone who's been here all of three days and has already managed to irritate several people, you couldn't have made it worse for yourself if you'd seriously wanted to.

As it stands, whether you think it's fair or not, you have something of a reputation to live down now.  You won't succeed in that if all you do is demand that you don't deserve the reputation in the first place.  What you do is you show by your actions that the reputation was unfair to begin with.  We've had a few people who started off poorly, but managed to recover from it by rising above it.  It's your choice, either way.

[Augusto]

RNS: Find your own examples man, if you like.

sun_king: Old argument, no christian follows that, and even muslims have a code, no matter how bad it is, they at least have one.

jaimehlers: Is there a believer in this comunity? just tell me that. And I disagree, I can also leave.

[ungod]

Okay, I'll start.

There are 4 primary attribute that describe what God would be. If any of these attributes are found in one force, then we can continue on, to see if God is real.

These 4 primary attributes are:

1) Eternal, not involved with the flow of our time.
2) Omnipresent, found everywhere.

If God is " not involved with the flow of our time", i.e. not present in our universe, then He is NOT
" Omnipresent, found everywhere"!

End of debate.

 

Clearly you didn't understood the full argument. This "infinite" particle IS present in our timeline.

So is the neutrino. I thought you were going to prove the existence of God, but now you've changed the goalposts to particle physics? ROTFLMAO!

Show us where "Infinite particle" is mentioned  ANYWHERE in the quoted part of your claim!

These 4 primary attributes are:

1) Eternal, not involved with the flow of our time.
2) Omnipresent, found everywhere.

SHOW US! SHOW US! I don't give a rat's ass about your grand "full argument". The logical contradiction in your  statement, quoted above, shows your pants are on fire.

[HAL]

OK, I got my wire and I'm back,. Now let's see ...

You can also see what was going to be the name of the debate, which I was asked to determine more than once, then the name was arbitrary set, just to mock me.

Let me get this straight. You, Augusto, think that the initial name I set for the debate -

A Debate: Augusto vs. Lucifer

was done to mock you. Do I have that just about right?

I posted on these fora for at least 4 or 5 years, and I got pretty good at mocking people I wanted to mock. If that's a mocking title, I must have lost every mocking skill I ever learned.

[Augusto]

So why did you asked me to choose the title of the debate more than once and then come up with your own title? Simple enough question.

[HAL]

So why did you asked me to choose the title of the debate more than once and then come up with your own title? Simple enough question.

What do you want the title to be?

[Ivellios]

Gravity is not a force, per se. Gravity is a side-effect of spacetime distortions caused by particles with mass.

I thought they were:

Weakest to strongest

1) Gravity
2) Electromagnetism
3) Weak Nuclear Force
4) Strong Nuclear Force

[jetson]

Augusto, I will tell you that I am very disappointed in your behavior, and your misrepresentation of the long time members of this forum.  If you have a position on the existence of God, and you can back that position up with facts and evidence, then no amount of consideration for how you are treated can be used against your argument.

You entered a forum where the title is "Why Won't God Heal Amputees".  The forum has a lot of people who simply have no reason to believe a god is real, and the forum has seen hundreds, if not thousands of "believers" come and go.  Not a single one has provided any reason that God would not heal an amputee.  The reason is obvious to many members, there is no god.

You entered this group, now all you need to do is show that you deserve the respect you seem to think you are not getting.  I can tell you that we have had plenty of believers who earned the respect of the members here.  A part of their approach was getting to know the people, as opposed to thinking you know the group.

Atheism is NOT a religion.  And no matter how many times you say it, you are wrong.

[Augusto]

So why did you asked me to choose the title of the debate more than once and then come up with your own title? Simple enough question.

What do you want the title to be?

I posted it as you requested, also no longer the problem since your candidate insulted yet again after his second post in the debate, breaking the most basic rule of any debate: civility. While you also ignored the stablished rules and Lucifer had no penalization by the administration, on the contrary, I have had several in only two days, most of them based in arbitrarity.

Also both of you refused to offer an apology and plan to keep playing around with me, as if I were some inferior trash to have fun with. I already started my debate in another forum (this time, I was invited).

Jetson: Just point me at ONE member who have not been dragged to your beliefs and have some good reputation and activity for a decent time and I'll accept you're not an agressive, hostile, arbitrary comunity and apologize, otherwise, stop making up lies.

[jetson]

...otherwise, stop making up lies.

Can you see how this might be taken when you enter a forum as a new member?

[Ivellios]

Agusto, did you watch the Atheism video in this thread, or did you only whine about it?

Bill Maher - Atheism is a religion, like Abstinence is a sex position.

[jetson]

Jetson: Just point me at ONE member who have not been dragged to your beliefs and have some good reputation and activity for a decent time and I'll accept you're not an agressive, hostile, arbitrary comunity and apologize, otherwise, stop making up lies.

Go read this member's posts and replies, as far back as you want.  He's not the only one either...

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1579

[Augusto]

...otherwise, stop making up lies.

Can you see how this might be taken when you enter a forum as a new member?

Just saying what I think, so I broke another rule right? punishment demanded...! shut me, erase my posts, bann me, or just bash me, as other mods have done already.

[HAL]

Also both of you refused to offer an apology and plan to keep playing around with me, as if I were some inferior trash to have fun with. I already started my debate in another forum (this time, I was invited).

OK, you lose the debate.

Thank you for your participation.

[jetson]

...otherwise, stop making up lies.

Can you see how this might be taken when you enter a forum as a new member?

Just saying what I think, so I broke another rule right? punishment demanded...! shut me, erase my posts, bann me, or just bash me, as other mods have done already.

No rules broken from where I stand.  Just condescending behavior.  That is your right, but don't expect everyone to embrace it.

[sun_king]

RNS: Find your own examples man, if you like.

sun_king: Old argument, no christian follows that, and even muslims have a code, no matter how bad it is, they at least have one.

jaimehlers: Is there a believer in this comunity? just tell me that. And I disagree, I can also leave.

Hey!!! Its in the book and the book is inerrant. If it is not followed anymore, why is it in the book? We can resume this conversation when the book is trimmed down to the stuff which people can actually follow. That particular version may be shorter than "An Engineer's Guide to Fashion".

And having a code need not really make you moral. Pimps have their codes, loan sharks have their codes...

[ParkingPlaces]

Why do I say this atheism is like a religion?

Because in this forum, just like in any religious forum, people bash with hate those who hold a different belief, and they're mercilesly undermined with hate and mock. Because they twist rules or logic in favor of their beliefs, and even because there are some people who "advice" not to listen those who think differently.

You may find this hard to believe, but there is a big difference between disagreeing with someone and hate, unless you're a republican, in which case it means the same thing.

To think that it makes sense for you to show up dissing the bible and yet agreeing that the biblical god is the right one, that's fine. To think we're all going to go gaga over your "new" way of looking at an old god is naive. And when you defend yourself so poorly, using reasoning that none of us would ever accept, even from an atheist, you sort of doomed yourself. We are not going to apologize for your inability to think critically about new age stuff. There is a reason there isn't a "New Age" section in my local university's science library.

At the end, people choose to follow atheism, for the most part, based not in reason but in emotions, just like in any religion. And so, my words sound empty and stupid to them, just like christian words can seem just the same to a muslim or a jew. No room for reason, no respect, no decency when comes to protect your beliefs.

See, you have it exactly backwards. The religious are emotional, yes, but my reasons, and I daresay the reasons virtually every other atheist on this site disbelieves is because of our rational assessment of reality. I don't get the least bit teary eyed over fossils or radiometric testing data or DNA samples. I do look at such things as evidence that forces besides the alleged intelligent ones could bring the universe and life into being. When unknowns confront us, like dark matter and whether or not string theory is legitimate, we wait patiently while those who know how investigate and research study such questions. Emotional people don't like not having answers. Rational people understand that we don't know everything and that we never will. But we try. And what we do know we accept as the best current description of reality, because nobody else, and especially not the religious, can do any better.

Therefore, I consider this to be the worst religion ever, because it have no god and no rules whatsoever, not even rules to break, no room for regret, no nothing but wild actions driven by emotional, brainwashed people.

No, wild emotional brainwashed people fly planes into the world trade center and burn children as witches in africa in 2012 and get excited whenever Rick Santorum opens his mouth. Those of us who question the stories of gods can't help but notice that we are far, far kinder and caring and loving than any description of the christian god ever conveys. I, for instance, am not so frickin' egotistical that I would give thought one to punishing every single generation of people I created over one measly broken rule. But you guys are into sinning big time, and rules and covenants and following your god, even as you blow each other up for not agreeing with you.

This year will make my 50th anniversary as an atheist, and I have yet get shot at by police. I recently walked back into the grocery store and paid for some ice cream that the checker forgot to charge me for. How is that a "no rules whatsoever, not even rules to break, no room for regret" type of action?"
 

People have the ability to believe, to follow, and no atheist can avoid being like that. It is present since the beginning of humanity, in every culture. People just "believe in something", so what do I have to say to your beliefs, to your faith? if such "religion" were to take over, world would become anarchy. That's what I think. We need a moral code, and atheists cannot offer that, they cannot even make people free from believing, they will, instead, turn to atheism as their new faith and find it have no system, therefore, anarchy will reign.

I of course cannot dissuade you from thinking this, because apparently it is important for you to have some sense of superiority over those who you disagree with. But I can tell you that you are wrong, so you can no longer say nobody ever told you. I repeat. You are wrong. Do I have beliefs? Yep. Are they religious in nature? Nope. Live with it. Or at least know that you've been told. That you are wrong.

Basically, believers think they're superior to others because their religion is true and they will go to heaven, plus, they're not just animals, they're the offpring of God. By the other side, atheist believe they are superior to others because they're smarter, they hold the truth, and the rest are just stupid lambs. Truth is, people is people, and atheists are no different from theists, well, theists have moral codes and try hard to be good.

You know, of course, that 70% of people think they have above average intelligence. That includes atheists as well as theists. So a lot of people are wrong about stuff like that. I don't consider myself all that intelligent. My strong point is sarcasm, not brilliance. And just like theists, I try to be good. And by the way, I have moral codes. Successfully taught to me by the society I grew up in. I must. I've not yet robbed a bank or torn the tags off my mattress. Why aren't you impressed?

Moreover, just think of the meaning of Lucifer and I. Think if that's what you want for you and your loved ones. A nick that represents everything that is evil and dirty, no matter what the bible says, Lucifer means evil, and this person uses that nick because atheists have NO RULES, no moral stablished and accepted, and it's not just his nick, but also the way he thinks and acts. To him I am trash, my arguments are trash, and we, believers are inferior.

Its a joke! Of course, atheists aren't the least bit concerned about the legitimacy of any Lucifer fella. You guys are. And why shouldn't we make fun of theists. You used to burn us at the stake. Give us a little leeway.

By the way, since you're not big on the bible anyway, why is the name Lucifer a problem? How do you know which parts to listen to and which not? Until you tell us the specifics of your belief system, we're likely to offend you in multiple ways. I hope the muppets aren't involved. I love quoting Kermit.

This is not only supported by him, but pretty much everyone in the comunity agrees with him and acts just the same. This proves my point, turning this "comunity" into a very dangerous one, even more dangerous than muslims. Also, this fits pretty good with prophecies of God. That's right, there are no proofs of God's existence, therefore, follow insanity and ruin your life, but remember: there are no proofs of God's non-existence either.

Dangerous? Are my words, when they show up on your screen, all sharp and pointy or something?

Here is a description of one event that took Place on "Bloody Friday" in Northern Ireland in 1972, because of the conflict between protestants and catholics:

A car-bomb exploded outside the Ulsterbus depot on Oxford Street, the busiest bus station in Northern Ireland. An Austin 1100 saloon car containing explosives had been driven to the rear of the depot. The consequent explosion resulted in the greatest loss of life and the greatest number of casualties. Some of the victims were virtually blown to pieces which led authorities to give an initial estimate of 11 deaths.[10] The area was being cleared but was still crowded when the bomb exploded. Two British Army soldiers, Stephen Cooper (19) and Philip Price (27), were close to the car bomb at the moment of detonation and died instantly. Three Protestant civilians who worked for Ulsterbus were killed: William Crothers (15), Thomas Killops (39) and Jackie Gibson (45). One other Protestant Ulsterbus employee, who was a member of the Ulster Defence Association, was also killed in the blast: William Irvine (18).[11] Close to 40 people were injured.

Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Friday_(1972) if this turns you on.

Show me a case where one single atheist on this site has done or even threatened to do anything similar to you. Before you go tossing out charges like "dangerous", keep in mind that you and yours invented the term, or at least caused it to be needed. Atheists didn't charge into Jerusalem and make the streets knee deep in blood during the crusades. We're frickin' milquetoasts in comparison. If our words wound you, your sensitivity is a bit too high. But I can assure you that none of us are after your blood.

You're sensitive. That's not a bad thing. Until you use it to excuse your actions and call us bad. I daresay that virtually all of us could be a good friend of yours were we to meet elsewhere, if we could avoid feuding over our religious differences.

There will never be a time when everybody in the world agrees. If something horrible happens and suddenly there are only two people left, they will still not agree on god if both of them are religious. Even we atheists would squabble over who had the coolest looking belly wound. To expect to get along with people because you can make them agree with you will make every day of your life more difficult than it needs to be. Here at WWGHA you had a chance to learn how people who disagree with you think. Instead you had to make the claim that you are an innocent victim.

That will never serve you well.

You've just been told that too.

[Asmoday]

After that, a lot of members started bashing in this topic in every single page, nothing was done about it. They critize that I didn't wrote my argument as a "legit" way to dismiss it, and so new rules were born:
- I "shouldn't" post anything that I dont create.
- If I post something from another source I should post a link (even when Lucifer didn't do the same in his first post).
- I cannot post youtube videos (even when this is not in the rules.

Augusto, have you ever had an actual debate before? From both your behavior here and in the actual debate thread, I guess not.

1) The first point is not that you shouldn't post anything you did not create. You were asked not to copy&paste large parts of other people's work without making it known it was copy&paste and, more importantly, the point of a debate is for the participants to debate and not just create posts that are for the most part info-dumps made out of snippets from other text and links to videos.

There is no use calling it a debate if you copy&paste for the most part. That has always been the enforced rule in debates. If you have a point, say it in your own words (references are allowed of course, but that was not what you were doing).

2) As said in point 1, copy&paste of large chunks out of other people's works without marking them as such is a no-no. This is not some arbitrary rule created to harass you, it is enforced on the whole forum for everyone and it's also common on practically all serious discussion forums on the internet.

Besides, you were asked for a link specifically because you posted things in such a way that they looked as if you had written them even though it was a full copy&paste from some other source.

3) You were asked not to post youtube videos anymore because just like I mentioned in point 1, you were using those videos to make your point for you instead of actually debating yourself. Not to mention that these youtube videos were not small but rather lengthy. Why this is a no-no in a debate is not rocket science; this is basic debate culture.

If I were to have a debate with someone in rl and I'd go there, tell him "Well, my point is XYZ" and without further ado plonk several books and DVDs on the table in front of him so he should do the work himself, then the other person would be correct to question my "debating" style.
Because, quite simply, that is not debating. To debate means to present your point of view in your own words and then also defend it in your own words.

On top of that, Lucifer's response was not following the simple rules we set, and he was not penalized for that, when I responded to those facts, my post was deleted, "because it was offtopic" such thing follows an invisible rule, and my post was not offtopic.

Your post was removed not because of an "invisible rule" but because despite being told not to post in a certain way (creating info-dump posts in the style of your first post) you did it anyway.

What I asked was merely for equality but it was too much to ask.

If Lucifer's post had contained lenghty videos and unmarked copy&paste from other sources, he would have been told the same as you have been.

Why do I say this atheism is like a religion?

Because in this forum, just like in any religious forum, people bash with hate those who hold a different belief, and they're mercilesly undermined with hate and mock. Because they twist rules or logic in favor of their beliefs, and even because there are some people who "advice" not to listen those who think differently.

At the end, people choose to follow atheism, for the most part, based not in reason but in emotions, just like in any religion. And so, my words sound empty and stupid to them, just like christian words can seem just the same to a muslim or a jew. No room for reason, no respect, no decency when comes to protect your beliefs.

I fear you mix something up here.

Following something solely based on emotion is the field of religion, that much is true. But that#s not what atheism is about. You'll be hard pressed to find a single atheist on here to say that they do not believe in gods because they merely feel that way. We don't believe in God because there is no evidence for such an entity.

Besides, people do not "choose" to follow atheism. It's the same way in which you can't "choose" to realize that Santa Claus is not real after you find out that Santa is a fictional figure and that it's your parents who are putting the gifts under the Christmas tree.

Therefore, I consider this to be the worst religion ever, because it have no god and no rules whatsoever, not even rules to break, no room for regret, no nothing but wild actions driven by emotional, brainwashed people.

There's no gods and no rules to break because atheism is not a religion.

Atheism is the non-belief in deities. That's all.

Your argument here is the same as if you were to say "Not playing games is the worst game ever because there are no rules and no way to win."

People have the ability to believe, to follow, and no atheist can avoid being like that. It is present since the beginning of humanity, in every culture. People just "believe in something", so what do I have to say to your beliefs, to your faith? if such "religion" were to take over, world would become anarchy. That's what I think.

People have the ability to believe but that doesn't mean all people believe in something. Not believing in gods is not a belief itself.
Being bald is also not a hair colour.

We need a moral code, and atheists cannot offer that, they cannot even make people free from believing, they will, instead, turn to atheism as their new faith and find it have no system, therefore, anarchy will reign.

You should take note that your moral code does not stem from religion.

You judge your own religious text, the bible, with the moral code that has been ingrained to you by society, culture and parenting. If your moral code came from religion and their "holy" texts (in your case the bible) it would be unchanging. If we look at history, we find that this is not the case. Religion is always a step behind cultural morality. Cultural morality changes and after (fruitlessly) stemming against it for a while, religion adapts to it by re-interpreting their holy texts to fit the moral standard of that time. Not the other way round.

Moreover, just think of the meaning of Lucifer and I. Think if that's what you want for you and your loved ones. A nick that represents everything that is evil and dirty, no matter what the bible says, Lucifer means evil, and this person uses that nick because atheists have NO RULES, no moral stablished and accepted, and it's not just his nick, but also the way he thinks and acts. To him I am trash, my arguments are trash, and we, believers are inferior.

The name Lucifer simply stands for morning star or Lightbringer. You perceive it as evil simply because in the context of your mythical religion Lucifer is supposed to be the evil villain of the story.

Fun fact: The word "Lucifer" is a later addition to the bible when in 382 AD the pope Damasus commissioned a revision of the old latin translation of the bible.

Food for thought (for Augusto): In the New Testament Lucifer ( light bringer and morning star) refers to Jesus and not to "everything that is evil and dirty."

That's right, there are no proofs of God's existence, therefore, follow insanity and ruin your life, but remember: there are no proofs of God's non-existence either.

There is no definite "proofs of the non-existence" of faeries, Cthulhu, the Kraken, a mirror earth, the Jain universal entity, the galactic emperor Xenu or of the monster hiding under your bed either.

So, no evidence for faeries but also not evidence for the non-existence of faeries either. Does that mean it is logical to believe in faeries?


It is impossible to prove a negative. For example you can not prove that there is not an invisible, undetectable pet dragon in my house. Of course your inability to do so does not make it resonable to believe there is an invisible, undetectable pet dragon in my house unless I show evidence to the contrary.
If I fail to produce evidence of my pet dragon, the reasonable thing is to not believe any of it.

It's the same with your God. You say there is a god, so it's your job to produce actual evidence. Simply saying that nobody can produce evidence God doesn#t exist is not enough to validate belief in the notion of God's existence.

It's merely a rhetorical parlour trick you're trying. and we're not buying it.