The OTF (for JST):

[Omen]

What is so hard about understanding something as simple as backing up your claims?

Nothing.  But it does seem to me you have a double standard.

When have you ONCE supported a claim you're making that didn't require us to literally beg you for dozens of posts, just to either have you abandon all together or make a few more posts just repeating your initial claim?

Not to mention having to deal with you constantly equivocating about how we're not going to believe you, claiming you did 'research' while posting links that offer no explanation, and excusing yourself from responsibility whenever you can respond with a red herring.

[Alzael]

Nothing.  But it does seem to me you have a double standard.

What double standard? Show that it exists. Again, this is just a random claim with no though involved. It's not meant to discuss, it's just meant to be a meaningless snipe that negates discussion since it can't be argued with in any rational way.

As it stands it's nonsense.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So, we're moving on to insulting people on the forum without explanation.

According to what I read at the bottom of that thread the evidence says yes.  But calling someone a child is not really an insult if they really are a child.

Your arguments say otherwise.  You began a thread, supposedly arguing for your beliefs, by repeating the typical anti-science creationist nonsense.  You were describing these positions as if they were already a polemical dichotomy, which contradicts your next claim:

This was because I had some misconceptions.  You guys helped clear them up.

[Omen]

So, we're moving on to insulting people on the forum without explanation.

According to what I read at the bottom of that thread the evidence says yes.  But calling someone a child is not really an insult if they really are a child.

You're an idiot, of course that's not an insult, if you're an idiot.

Equivocating about insulting people doesn't make it any less of an insult, the purpose of the statement is to be dismissive and you offered no explanation to accompany it.  Pejorative? Check! Dismissive? Check! No explanation? Check!

Your arguments say otherwise.  You began a thread, supposedly arguing for your beliefs, by repeating the typical anti-science creationist nonsense.  You were describing these positions as if they were already a polemical dichotomy, which contradicts your next claim:

This was because I had some misconceptions.  You guys helped clear them up.

LMAO.

So now you love science!?  You've done a complete 180, from a position you insisted you did research on while espousing vague anti-science crap, when you clearly did not.  To coming all the way to saying the bible agrees with what modern science says, despite individuals pointing out inconsistencies that state otherwise.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you behave in this manner?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Nothing.  But it does seem to me you have a double standard.

What double standard? Show that it exists. Again, this is just a random claim with no though involved. It's not meant to discuss, it's just meant to be a meaningless snipe that negates discussion since it can't be argued with in any rational way.

As it stands it's nonsense.

Here are some unsupported claims that did not originate with me.

Yes I can appreciate this.  However I do also think that a great many of them knew they were doing wrong, by not following the Bible,..

The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.  As were, and still are, the arguments against women's rights, gay rights, non-christian rights, etc.  Those who opposed slavery had very little in biblical arguments against slavery, just as those who support women's rights, gays, or non-christians face an uphill battle against a culture that tries to narrowly assume value is only arrived through a belief originating from biblical extremes.

In fact, it was commonly believed in much of Christendom that african americans were a product of the curse upon caine/ham.  This commonly held notion fell out of use towards the end of the 19th century with the advent of modern biology largely supported by contributions of Darwin.

And as I said above the conversations were going along fine until a certain individual arrived.  I cannot help but think that it's more than coincidence.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

So, we're moving on to insulting people on the forum without explanation.

According to what I read at the bottom of that thread the evidence says yes.  But calling someone a child is not really an insult if they really are a child.

You're an idiot, of course that's not an insult, if you're an idiot.

Equivocating about insulting people doesn't make it any less of an insult, the purpose of the statement is to be dismissive and you offered no explanation to accompany it.  Pejorative? Check! Dismissive? Check! No explanation? Check!

I think the Christian belief is that doing anything harmful to your own body is a sin.  What about those that have disabilities?  "God remembers that we are only dust".

I don't wanna debate.  I'm just stating what I think are the Christian beliefs.  Do with them what you will.

aka "I don't want to be shown I'm an idiot who doesn't know his own bible and makes shit up". 

This is okay but calling someone a child is not?  See there's that double standard.

[Omen]

The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.  As were, and still are, the arguments against women's rights, gay rights, non-christian rights, etc.  Those who opposed slavery had very little in biblical arguments against slavery, just as those who support women's rights, gays, or non-christians face an uphill battle against a culture that tries to narrowly assume value is only arrived through a belief originating from biblical extremes.

In fact, it was commonly believed in much of Christendom that african americans were a product of the curse upon caine/ham.  This commonly held notion fell out of use towards the end of the 19th century with the advent of modern biology largely supported by contributions of Darwin.

And as I said above the conversations were going along fine until a certain individual arrived.  I cannot help but think that it's more than coincidence.

Wanna see how easy it is:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.

Man see how hard that is?

Defenders of slavery argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually."

Man.. it just slides off the tongue.

How about arguments being the same, regardless of what oppressive cause christians were supporting?

James Thornwell, a minister, wrote in 1860, "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they are Atheists, Socialists, Communists, Red Republicans, Jacobins on the one side and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other."

I say atheist were in good company.

How about more than one source:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/freedom/story.html?id=9b658aef-5161-465b-bbac-88be5bd43aad&k=22326

The South fiercely upheld the institution of slavery. The following were some of the arguments they often used in their justification of slavery:

* Biblical references show God approves slavery: e.g. Israelites, "God's chosen people," were slaveholders; Christ never condemned it; Paul supported it.

* All men are not created equal: the black race is inferior; thus, blacks are better off as property of superior whites who ensure their subsistence.

* Slaves are content with slavery, for their masters ensure they're fed, clothed and taught Christian values: comparatively, Southern slaves are better off than many of the immigrant workers in Northern factories who are confined in unhealthy workplaces for long hours.

* Slavery is the key to national prosperity-for both the North and the South: cotton produced in the South is a major U.S. export to Europe; thus, if the Southern economy is tampered with, the big industrial cities of the North would collapse.

* Slavery enabled the founding of the American Republic: four out of the first five American presidents were slaveholders from Virginia, and George Washington owned as many as 300 slaves over his lifetime.

* Great civilizations from the past allowed slavery: e.g. Egypt, Greece, Rome.

To quote some douchebag: Winning.[1]

1.

I used to have quotations from congressional records of slave owners in congress arguing down lines of people who were petitioning before congress to argue against slavery.  Since most of these people were young and a sizable portion women, they were often dismissed as immature and biblical authority was cited to dismiss women because as we all know a woman shouldn't have authority over a man ( to teach ).  These women were but properly biblically submissive to husbands, since they weren't married, and didn't have anything better to do with their time when they should have been raising babies.  Of course, I'll have to dig to look this one up again, its been several years since I scoured congressional records.  Needless to say, the arguments weren't that much different from modern christian arguments against a host of socially progressive issues.

[Omen]

aka "I don't want to be shown I'm an idiot who doesn't know his own bible and makes shit up". 

This is okay but calling someone a child is not?  See there's that double standard.

So you didn't support what you were claiming, which is generally disrespectful and insulting to others, and someone returned the favor?

[Alzael]

Nothing.  But it does seem to me you have a double standard.

What double standard? Show that it exists. Again, this is just a random claim with no though involved. It's not meant to discuss, it's just meant to be a meaningless snipe that negates discussion since it can't be argued with in any rational way.

As it stands it's nonsense.

Here are some unsupported claims that did not originate with me.

As Omen showed. The difference is that when I or him or the others here claim something, we can always back them up if asked. Sometimes we don't automatically for simplicity. But when ased we make sure we can provide. Or we don't make the claiom.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Ahh, and see you made a lie of omission.  You said...

The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.

But I read.

Those who defended slavery rose to the challenge set forth by the Abolitionists. The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments.

Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable.

Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society

Defenders of slavery argued that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and the English had slavery until very recently.

Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision, that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders'

Then finally they mention the Bible.  So there was one argument and not argument(s) in the Bible.

And as I said above the conversations were going along fine until a certain individual arrived.  I cannot help but think that it's more than coincidence.

And it's happening all over again.  I am done talking to Omen.

[Dynamic]

You sir, win a Darwin.

"This community is a fantastic one for atheists - it's filled with good resources, good ears, people who actually give a damn and who try to help those who are atheists (especially new atheists) get by in what feels like a society that is stacked against them."

This forum made me a Atheist.

"Does this make sense?  I want you, and all other theists, to understand that even in our most heated moments, we are still human, and that we (at least societally) share most of the same values.  Atheists don't go on stealing sprees and we don't eat babies and we don't murder at random.  We read books, we play games, we raise families, we work, and we love - and we largely embrace the humanity that enables us to do just that."

I know people who view Atheists as stupid, immoral people.

[Omen]

Ahh, and see you made a lie of omission.  You said...

The arguments supporting slavery in the US were biblical justifications.

But I read.

Semantics JST, they were not the only arguments.  It is not omitted to support a claim that they were ONLY biblical arguments, it is made available ( along with source ) to point out the claim that arguments used to support slavery in the US were based on biblical justifications.

And it's happening all over again.  I am done talking to Omen.

You mean I've immediately made you out to be a dishonest hypocrite again, which you don't like.  What you ultimately want here is a total and complete avoidance of responsibility regarding your own claims, which you're never going to have.  No one on this forum is going to allow it, with or without me badgering you.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

No because you are delusional and have a twisted sense of reality.

I think the Christian belief is that doing anything harmful to your own body is a sin.  What about those that have disabilities?  "God remembers that we are only dust".

I don't wanna debate.  I'm just stating what I think are the Christian beliefs.  Do with them what you will.

I can state my opinion without backing it up.  The fact that I am saying it is evidence enough that it really is my opinion.

[Alzael]

I can state my opinion without backing it up.  The fact that I am saying it is evidence enough that it really is my opinion.

But if you can't back up your opinion, it's meaningless. As is what you're saying. So why should anyone care about an uneducated, opinion that you can't distinguish from a fantasy and that you're unwilling to even back up.

[Omen]

No because you are delusional and have a twisted sense of reality.

If I'm delusional, then why do we have to beg you to support your own claims?

I can state my opinion without backing it up.  The fact that I am saying it is evidence enough that it really is my opinion.

How do we differentiate your opinion from make believe?

How do we differentiate your claims from someone who is mentally ill?

[eye over you]

I can state my opinion without backing it up.  The fact that I am saying it is evidence enough that it really is my opinion.

      Then it's just jibber-jabber. Jibber-jabber is for Facebook and chatrooms, not discussion forums.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

No because you are delusional and have a twisted sense of reality.

If I'm delusional, then why do we have to beg you to support your own claims?

I can state my opinion without backing it up.  The fact that I am saying it is evidence enough that it really is my opinion.

How do we differentiate your opinion from make believe?

How do we differentiate your claims from someone who is mentally ill?

That's not my job to do in this setting.  I could be entirely wrong.  Maybe you can harm your body in any and all ways and it's not a sin.  But this is not my opinion.  If you want to know if my opinion is correct then look it up.

If I debate my opinion then I must support it, but if I state it then I do not.  Because really, in the instance we're talking about, I don't care if they believe me or not or I would state to debate.

[Omen]

That's not my job to do in this setting.

It is also a rule requirement on this forum.

But this is not my opinion.  If you want to know if my opinion is correct then look it up.

There is nothing to look up, I can't look up "your opinion".

If I debate my opinion then I must support it, ..

if you make ANY claim, you have to support it.

This is just your admission that you're never going to be honest and openly participate on this forum.

[Alzael]

That's not my job to do in this setting.

I'm going to mention this for the last time, Jst.

These are the forum rules.

"As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against their arguments."

You don't get to just shrug and go "my opinion" to escape having to back up your claims. This is why you are constantly accused of being dishonest. Because you engage in such a way that your claims cannot be verified, yet make claims of truth.

[Eddie Schultz]

Jst, I sense it won't be long before you become at least an Agnostic, as long as you take what ex christians on this forum have been telling you to heart. Think about them, and that they believed as you do now. They also couldn't, or wouldn't show us evidence for their opinions, or claims. Most of them ultimately clear themselves of the brainwashing and become a rational thinker.

If you can't do it, then you're well on your way to being a non believer, or at least one that just admits that "they don't know anything for sure".

Good luck to you. 

[Tinyal]

I really doubt that JST is reachable, under any circumstances.  As we know there hasn't been any evidence for any god, or GOD, or higher power ever presented, by anyone, not in thousands of years of recorded human history.

All they have - each and every one of them - is some mismash of beliefs that make them feel special, make them feel 'a part of' - make them feel they truly matter in the world.   A seductive set of beliefs.

In reality, what they are is people full of fear, or people who simply cannot think critically, or simply dumb people born from the shallow end of the gene pool.  People like JST simply cannot fathom that people die - and that's it.  Being brainwashed from infancy doesn't help them much either (my view has long been that religious upbringing of children is mental child abuse, and should be illegal).

I used to feel sorry for the 85% of americans who are religious believers - now, I simply try to ignore them, live my life without them nearby, but it's not possible.  These people vote based on their delusional beliefs, and that affects me and mine, and I won't have it if there's anything (ethically supportable) I can do to prevent it.

Not that I have much say in the matter, of course.  What I can do is point out their absurd way of life and laugh, or do what I can to make sure my way of life isn't threatened by them - they would bring us all back to the dark ages if they had their way.  If I had my way I'd move them all to some island somewhere, wall it up and cut it off from the rest of the world, let them kill each other off without affecting real people, thinking people, people who don't live in fear.

They are dangerous to Civilization - each and every one of them.   Conflict, in my view, is (eventually) unavoidable.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Alzael

So let me get this right.

I really doubt that JST is reachable, under any circumstances.  As we know there hasn't been any evidence for any god, or GOD, or higher power ever presented, by anyone, not in thousands of years of recorded human history.

All they have - each and every one of them - is some mismash of beliefs that make them feel special, make them feel 'a part of' - make them feel they truly matter in the world.   A seductive set of beliefs.

In reality, what they are is people full of fear, or people who simply cannot think critically, or simply dumb people born from the shallow end of the gene pool.  People like JST simply cannot fathom that people die - and that's it.  Being brainwashed from infancy doesn't help them much either (my view has long been that religious upbringing of children is mental child abuse, and should be illegal).

I used to feel sorry for the 85% of americans who are religious believers - now, I simply try to ignore them, live my life without them nearby, but it's not possible.  These people vote based on their delusional beliefs, and that affects me and mine, and I won't have it if there's anything (ethically supportable) I can do to prevent it.

Not that I have much say in the matter, of course.  What I can do is point out their absurd way of life and laugh, or do what I can to make sure my way of life isn't threatened by them - they would bring us all back to the dark ages if they had their way.  If I had my way I'd move them all to some island somewhere, wall it up and cut it off from the rest of the world, let them kill each other off without affecting real people, thinking people, people who don't live in fear.

They are dangerous to Civilization - each and every one of them.   Conflict, in my view, is (eventually) unavoidable.

This opinion is okay, but

I think the Christian belief is that doing anything harmful to your own body is a sin.  What about those that have disabilities?  "God remembers that we are only dust".

I don't wanna debate.  I'm just stating what I think are the Christian beliefs.  Do with them what you will

this one is not?  Can you explain to me the difference other than one is an atheist speaking hurtful things

They are dangerous to Civilization - each and every one of them.

and another is a theist trying to clarify a belief.  I mean do these rules apply to everyone or just theists?

[Tinyal]

What part of what I said would you like me to support?

[Omen]

This opinion is okay, but

It does accurately describe YOUR behavior on this forum.

this one is not?

You're misconstruing statements of opinion with conclusive statements in themselves.  As Alzael accurately pointed out, you've made several assertions that are not opinions, delivered as claims of truth.

Not to mention, that you could simply ask him to support his conclusions, like you did me.. and promptly saw me do so without a moments hesitation.  You didn't even have to beg me.

[Omen]

Why are you even fighting against a request that you be honest?

[Alzael]

I mean do these rules apply to everyone or just theists?

So ask him to support his position, instead of just whining to me.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

What part of what I said would you like me to support?

In reality, what they are is people full of fear, or people who simply cannot think critically, or simply dumb people born from the shallow end of the gene pool.

People like JST simply cannot fathom that people die - and that's it.

They are dangerous to Civilization - each and every one of them.

This is also a rule:

Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated.

So not only have you just made a statement of opinion but you have trolled the thread.  Whereas when I stated my opinion noone even asked me to support it nor did they contest it.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Why are you even fighting against a request that you be honest?

I am not addressing you.  I am addressing the moderator.

[Omen]

This is also a rule:

Trolling other forum members, grudge matches, soap-opera dramas, and other actions that staff members deem to be designed to disrupt threads or provoke hostile emotional responses from other forum members will not be tolerated.

Wow.. this is rich.

So you have visceral reaction to being asked to support your claims, to such a degree that it provokes a hostile emotional response from you and that's bad?

Are you really arguing this?