I'm trying for a successful sticky, we'll see if the quality holds up
Val's Law of Convergence (as pointed out by Tails_155 and named by William)
The poster in question turns every topic into whatever the topic they started that annoyed the most people was about, often through digression or a constant misunderstanding of what is fact.
The Law of Many Ones (a.k.a. Val's Law of Redundancy)If, at any time, a poster, especially on the topic of theism and objective morals goes into a chant of "one [noun], one [noun], one [noun]...," likely ending in "one [god]" that post may be ignored without remorse.
Hermes' LawThe Great Flood story is nothing more than a laughable piece of fiction, and anyone who believes it should be laughed at relentlessly.
"Noah's ark is a joke. It's amazing that anyone believes it actually happened. If I believed in it I would never admit it, because I would expect to be laughed at."
Godwin's LawAny statement involving an unwarranted reference to Hitler or the Nazi Party shall instantly be discredited on the grounds of silliness.
The Law of DudesAny statement including the word "dude" may instantly be taken with extreme skepticism on the grounds of meaningless expletives.
The Law of Walls of TextAny situation in which a person produces an excessively long, rambling, senseless string of text which does nothing more than exhaust the reader to the point of submission on the grounds of minimal stamina causing the reader to either lose interest or skip around and not actually read the whole thing because it is so stressful on the eyes to read word after word of meaningless drivel which rarely amounts to more than a long run-on sentence or twenty five thousand that have almost nothing really to say except how little they have to say for hours and hours of reading and yielding nothing of any actual value. Walls of text are rarely ever credited for being anything but a waste of time on the reader's part and are likely quoted from someone else anyway and aren't the "writer's" actual words. Spacing is a highly unique thing to discover in anything defined as a wall of text, but is not necessarily impossible to find as sometimes the writer will instead establish a bunch of miniature walls of text. The few people who actually take walls of text seriously often go insane far before anyone can finish reading the words all the way through. Most people don't even realize if all of the text is actual words or just simple fake epwe nwaoslw saoralw bisconusia bala lorem ipsum gargling banter. Whether the reader does actually read the entire extension of a wall of text or not is a moot point, anyway, since there is, as stated before, little information in the extensively exhaustive measure of text. Walls of text are likely to repeat themselves many times, sometimes word for word, as if copied from an earlier part of the wall of text. Walls of text are likely to repeat themselves many times, sometimes word for word, as if copied from an earlier part of the wall of text. Usually the majority of it is intended to be well thought out but ends up being anything but. There is minimal value in a wall of text because the end result is everyone wastes their time. Walls of text are likely to repeat themselves many times, sometimes word for word, as if copied from an earlier part of the wall of text.
The Law of SmiliesAny time you come across a
in a conversation that is intended to be serious, or give some irrefutable proof, don't hold your breath. When a
is discovered in any extensive explanation, the reader is inclined to believe that the writer doesn't take the subject seriously, therefore neither should the reader.
The Law of Excessive Punctuation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Any time more than two or three punctuation marks is used for a single sentence ending........ You can bet that the writer either has little to say, or doesn't really have
anything to say at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE LAW OF YELLINGANY TIME AN ENTIRE TEXT IS WRITTEN IN CAPITALS THE READER WILL RARELY GET TWO OR THREE SENTENCES IN BEFORE FINDING IT A WASTE OF TIME. IT IS EXHAUSTIVE TO READ ENTIRELY CAPITAL STRETCHES OF LETTERS, AND COMES OF VERY SIMILAR TO A WALL OF TEXT. CAPITALIZATION IS BEST LEFT TO THE FIRST LETTER OF A SENTENCE, OR OF A PROPER NOUN. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE...
The Law of Capital H "He"Any time an atheist of a certain type reads a capital H "he" anywhere but at the start of a sentence, it loses all merit of being important. This also goes for him, his, himself, and in a far rarer situation, hers, she, her, and herself.
The LAW of CAPITAL EMPHASISWhenever a WRITER on the FORUM uses CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize SPECIFIC words in the sentence INSTEAD of BOLD, ITALIC, or UNDERLINE functions, it makes the writer seem ANGRY, and therefore is taken less SERIOUSLY.
The Law of Random ChanceWhenever a bumbling creationist brings up the words "random chance" in a discussion about
any form of scientific study, the believers in science are allowed to shamelessly call their opponent, unstudied, an idiot, or just plain stupid.
The OneTrueBeliever Axiom (Velkyn's Law)Whenever a SPAG is encountered, or someone calls a group of their fellow religious believers, "not true believers," a minimum of one person will reply in the fashion of having discovered the OneTrueBeliever™ or something to that flavor, likely adding more and more words until it becomes a completely silly string of words meaning almost exactly the same thing.
The Law of Evillution (The Law of Evillusion)Any time a poster considers science or evolution evil, or the work of the devil, he or she is no longer worth reading for any reason because they are deluded beyond saving.
The Lw ov SpelugnAnytiem a psot hs mor that five typoa in t, it cn be discredidet aas nonsense.
Th Lw o Ch@spek!Ne time a post iz totall n ch@spek!, it duz not need 2 b red bcuz it haz nuffin useful n it.
The Law of LaughterAny time "lol," "ha ha," or any form of the concept is established within a post, likely in a condescending matter, it is not worth reading because the poster is most likely just a cocky closed-minded nutcase with a keyboard and nothing to say.
The Law of Ability to AnswerIf a poster says "that's easy to answer/refute" etc., but doesn't even make an attempt, they can be exiled from serious conversation on the grounds of most likely being just a cocky closed-minded nutcase with a keyboard and nothing to say.
Exception of Ability to AnswerIf the easy-to-answer post breaks any of the other laws, no answer is necessary.
The Law of Not Proving AnythingA poster stating "that doesn't prove anything" can be seen as a poster saying "I admit you are correct" unless they provide some explanation for the prooflessness of a statement.
The Law of Evidence Versus ProofEvidence is provided for science, proof is provided for math, getting the terms mixed up warrants ridicule, and that will likely be administered immediately.
The Law of Persistent, Progressive IrritationEvery so often, a poster will come along who only gets more and more annoying and less and less productive; these select few can be defined as a nonthreat and be ignored, or approached as a way to increase the blood pressure of oneself.
The Postulate of Scooby DooLanguage does not make humans not animals any more than it makes Scooby Doo not an animal. (This assumes cartoon representations of creatures qualify as examples of those creatures)
The Law of Coincidental Ocular and Otic PresenceEvidence of a situation holds more merit than witness testimony to an event.
The Law of Faithlessness Versus Quality of LivingNot believing in skymages is not the same as misery. Bill Gates and Richard Dawkins seem quite satisfied with life.
The First Law of Faithlessness Versus Mania (a.k.a. The Law of Desire for Equality)Demanding separation of church and state is not the same as being angry.
The First Law of Faithlessness Versus Mania (a.k.a. The Law of Projective Perception)Projecting a tone on input when reading does not mean that tone was present in the writer's mind.
The Law of Philosophy Versus ReligionBelieving in a deity is not the only way to arrive at a personal meaning of life, the only difference is that believing in a deity often assumes an objective meaning of life, which will likely be imposed on those who disagree.
The First Law of Carpet ClaimsOne stating he or she does not believe in a whole complex subject does not constitute a worthy discussion.
The Second Law of Carpet ClaimsOne stating that he or she does not understand an entire subject without supplying specific examples is a waste of text.
The Law of PanoramasSaying "look around you" is an infraction worthy of ridicule.
The Law of Cerasus Orchard HarvestCherry picking one's holy book of choice is a felonious act worthy of exile from serious discussion.
The Law of Wonky Sentence StructureWriting a statement in a way which following is highly difficult is a think which exile is the proper action. Anyone of which that produces bizarre sentences, types which proper understanding requires glances tenfold a first read, that statement becomes a glaring spotlight demonstrating stupidity or an argument from verbosity.
Yahweh's Law (a.k.a. The Axiom of the Incompetent Omnipotent)Being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving requires jealousy, arrogance, inability to control anything, hatred, false claims about reality (and a respect for ignorance, by extension,) and absolute stupidity.
The Personal Law of Bracket and Smiley SymmetryUnclosed, open brackets, and faces which can be mirrored (o_O O_o) may irk fellow posters with a compulsion for controllable symmetry, should they 'correct' these actions it is due to their own psychosis, and is not meant to offend.
The Law of Evasive DigressionIf a poster changes subject while plurality rules in favor of more elaboration or closure, the subject change is understood of concession to the opposing view.
Sam's First Law of Debate (a.k.a. The Law of Lying)Calling something a lie does not make it a lie.
Sam's Second Law of Debate (a.k.a The Law of False Projection)Saying someone believes in something doesn't mean he or she believes that thing.
The Law of External Citation QuarryingAny poster who commits to quite mining any source automatically loses all credibility in debate and risks exile from serious discussion. If this law is broken, the offending poster must register with the Quote Mine Offender's Registry, and must wear the ceremonial dunce cap for at least one year.
The Law of Relationships (a.k.a. Old Jeezy's Law)Christianity is a religion.
Caterpie's Law (a.k.a. The Law of the Theory of Pokémon Evolution)Metamophosis and evolution are different things.
The Law of Crocoducks (a.k.a. Potholer54's Law of Interspecies Nookie)Chimera so extreme as the crocoduck cannot and will not exist.
The Law of Carbon Dating (a.k.a Potholer54's Law of F***ing Carbon)Carbon-14 must be present to perform carbon dating. If there's no f***ing carbon, carbon dating will not work.
The Law of the Burden of Proof (a.k.a. The Pastafarian Postulate)To claim something absolutely does or does not exist requires absolute evidence; claiming disbelief in unproven things does not.
The Law of ResponsibilityAnything a poster says can and will be used against them, and if a poster starts a discussion, whether overwhelmed by posts or not, it is their obligation to answer questions presented.
The Law of the Invisible Comfort BlanketWishful thinking is not a valid premise.
The Law of Deck-of-Cards ProbabilityDrawing any hand in a game of cards with a casino-legal deck is just as likely as drawing any other hand.
The Law of Subjective Probability Versus FaithSubjective probability, not faith, provides the rationality of crossing a street without being hit by a bus.
The Law of Faith Versus DisbeliefIt requires no faith to be unconvinced of an evidenciarilly unsupported phenomenon.
The Law of Weak Atheism (AronRa's Law of Disbelief)Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease, one may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
The Law of Categories (AronRa's Law of Primateness)Demanding an ape-man is actually just as silly as asking to see a mammal-man, or a half-human, half-vertebrate. How about a half dachshund half dog? It's the same thing. One may as well insist on seeing a town halfway between Los Angeles and California.
The Law of Shoddy Gambling TacticsAnytime a post expresses the benefit of believing versus not believing based on the grounds of being correct upon fatality, the poster in question fails at debate, and must wear the ceremonial dunce cap for a fortnight.
The Three-Chance CorollaryIf, after three attempts to explain something, a debater still insists on using a false, or strawman example of a phenomenon, that debater fails at debate forever.
The Law of Word OwnershipIf a poster attempts to refute an argument without providing his own explanations, that post may be completely ignored.
The Explanation ExceptionIf, however, a video is meant for an immediate explanation or example that requires no clarification, the video should at least be watched and considered, or article read.
The Exception of Explanation Exception (The Exhaustion Exception)If a poster does link several videos,
especially in numbers over ten, no one is required to watch them, because the poster has not stated anything, only flooded other people's words. (Any number below this is up to the other posters' discretion)
The Law of SinAll sin does not explicitly, nor implicitly cause suffering, and it certainly does not cause suffering of an unrelated sort. E.g. homosexuality does not cause starvation, blasphemy does not cause cancer, etc.
The Law of Love and WindThere is evidence for love, it's a chemical reaction, there is scientific explanation for the phenomenon. There is evidence for wind, explainable sensation, and scientific study of the phenomenon.
The Law of Absolute Evil (Form I)Yahweh is alone, because nothing lives up to Yahweh's standards.
The Law of Absolute Evil (Form II)Evil is subjective, therefore only specific people find everyone evil.
The Law of Atheism Versus SatanismAn atheist cannot worship the devil, an atheist does not believe in the devil.
The Law of Atheism Versus Deic DisobedienceAn atheist cannot scorn, in actuality, nor intentionally disobey, a deity. An atheist doesn't believe in that deity.
The Law of Atheism Versus NihilismNot believing in deities is not the same as believing in nothing.
The Law of Atheism Versus NarcissismNot believing in deities is not the same as only believing in the importance of oneself. In fact, most atheists see believing that humans are perfectly designed pseudoavatars is far more arrogant.
The Law of CompositionOne person of a group is not the whole group.
The Law of Apostrophes, Plurals, and Possessives (NonStampCollector's Law)It is it's if it's "it is." It is its if it's its possessive. They are they're if it is "they are," their if it is their possessive, and there if it is over there. You are using you're if you're using "you are," you are using your if you're using your possessive. Apostrophes on words are for possessive outside this (mostly) "Joe's bike," plurals have NO apostrophe "the cars," unless it's a plural possessive, which is the same as a possessive ending in a letter s "the Stevens' house" or "the boss' office."
The Law of Passive Voice"It has been" anything will immediately be accepted to have not been so.
The First Law of Imperative LanguageTelling someone to do something without a sensible reason makes a poster come across as arrogant.
The Second Law of Imperative Language"It kind of makes you" does not. Subjective thoughts are not objective situations.
The Corollary of the Thrice IgnoredAny question ignored upon a third repost, especially if reposted by other posters can safely be assumed to have stumped the opponent.
The Anti-Axiom of Gaps"I don't know" is asynonymous with, and does not postulate, divine intervention.
The Law of Delusionary SuccessBecause a poster thinks they won a debate does not mean he or she did, in fact, win.
Nye's LawScience Rules.
The Law of SuperlativesHyperbolic speech is the most overused type of speech ever.
The Law of Disagreement Versus OppressionDisagreement is not oppression.
The Law of Protest Versus OppressionProtesting the injustice of something is not oppressiong the people who support that something.
The Law of the LordDeities, apparently, don't sin even though they do.
The Law of Breaking Down and Breaking DownIf a debate becomes tedious for a debater, and many flaws are present in the opponent's arguments, a breaking point may yield a deconstruction of the opponent's argument, pointing out fallacies, typos, contradictions, nonarguments, and anything else which throws up a red flag.
Poe's LawWhen it is impossible to tell whether something is serious or a parody, it is defined as a Poe.
The Law of TrollsDon't feed trolls.
The Law of Absolute TediumIf a debate gets nowhere for a very long time, backing down isn't necessarily concession, it may be an insult to the opponent implying s/he is displaying closed-mindedness and/or a distaste for his/her nonsense.
Pony's Law of Understanding and DictionTo avoid Atheist / Theist miscommunication, all posts by theists are to be properly translated before the formulation of a reply. The following resources may be used for assistance:
1,
2Astreja's First Law of Terse AmbushThe probability of finding two contradictory statements in the same Wall of Text post is directly proportional to the length of the post.
Astreja's Second Law of Terse AmbushAs a user's post count increases, the probability of finding a self-contradicting post approaches 1.0.
Astreja's Third Law of Terse AmbushEffectiveness of a rebuttal to a Wall of Text can be determined by the formula:
How about the Law of Bible Verses-atilityAny randomly chosen verse from the bible is considered a legitimate response to whatever the atheist says.
Nam's Law of Objective IdiocyEveryone, at any given moment, is an idiot.
The Law of the Newly Unoriginal (The Law of the Shiny New Dead Horse)Any new poster on the forum will inevitably post on topic that has already been done to death.
