I find that when I am reading answers, I first scan the upvoted ones, then look to others that might be more complete or better laid out, but people were too lazy to read.
zomg we need a moratorium on 'what is atheism' questions on the front page until everyone agrees on what the purpose of the definition should be. these should all be taking place on the meta for the time being
This is an extension of a previous question that was suggested I move into a different post:
What are the abstract properties of a "god" such that atheists can reject it?
Edit: By this I mean give the most general definition that you can without being so general that it exceeds the scope of at...
There is a consistent tactic he uses: throw in an unsubstantiated claim, then wait for comments from people, then throw in a (non sequitur) piece of statistics or reference, then wait for people to waste their time refuting it
It's a typical troll's tactic
And then his question on meta predates his comments
Bad things happen because man has rejected God. Even though God has given every man intelligence and an ability to distinguish right from wrong, man has chosen to do wrong. The consequences are devastating. Sin brings death and destruction, and finally Hell. God never intended for it to be that w...
There's an interesting parallel to this question, against the "incompetent design" argument, so I beg of everyone to allow me to draw this parallel.
The so-called "intelligent design" argument of how we came to be generally posits that life is too complex not to have a designer. Although it's n...
Actually, this Preacher user isn't not very popular on the site.
But @spoulson, to finish my earlier thought it goes in depth onto the mysterious ways bit, but that doesn't explain how you can then know what God wants you to do.
I think there are a good number of ex-religionists particularly ex-christians here who were well schooled in the Bible and the ways of defending one's faith against arguments against it
I don't think that the proper background argument holds.
@spoulson I was saying that there are enough people with a background in the bible and christian theology to have the background to read it though we're athiests.
@Ustice I wish it were more than that it was off-topic, since now it seems like we are actively discriminating against him even when he's not being openly inflammatory.
@spoulson, perhaps I misunderstood your statement about common background, could you rephrase?
@jjnguy Not necessarily. For me, using verses as an argument that largely leaves interpretation up to the reader is a form of intimidation.
@ThisIstheId If you were born/raised theist, then you have all the connections in your brain about what it means to be theist. Any other way of life would be foreign.
@ThisIstheId So, sometimes I read stuff like The Preacher's post, and it doesn't really make sense. I can shake it off as off-topic, but the conflict is he believes it's on-topic because of assumptions made.
@ThisIstheId When reading posts written to an atheism site, it's fair to assume most userbase will have an atheist background. So, certain religious assumptions will not apply to every reader.
Y u no know that humans use their lungs to think? R u actually sayin' dat those squishy grey brains could possibly be the source of thought? Lol u mad! And u call urselves cognitive scientists! Hah!
If a user calls someone out for copying an article, that post should deleted: not just amended to add the citation, but deleted.
You know how much original stuff of mine Jeff has wrongly censored. I'm banned from meta.stackoverflow.com for actions that weren't morally offensive to anyone. I ass...
On meta.SO, he's the most downvoted person of all times and banned. On Atheism., he asked a lot of very good question and provided quality answer. Even on meta.atheism, he has a lot of good q's and a's.
@mfg Especially plagiarizing freaking Wikipedia. It's under freaking Creative Commons. You can legally quote the whole thing for as long as you say where it's from...
And, as far as explanations go, Jeff has said, and will gladly say again, I was only banned for causing "too much talk".
Borror0, that's what plagiarizing is to begin with -- quoting without saying where it is from. It doesn't go away because it is cc-by-sa, in fact the crime is more grievous. In this case, they're giving it away!!! All they want is you to say where you got it! The same thing applies with the SO content by the way.
@EvanCarroll I must have come across the wrong way. I was trying to say that, although you have a reputation for being a troll over at MSO, you're one of the best contributors over here.
@Borror0 sorry i had to drop the room for a minute, if you look at the post and what i link to, im am explicit in my formal abhorrence of plagiarism, however, this was the first incident of it by that user. i'd rather assume that he dropped a citation than that he was prepared to pretend the work was his.
This is an extension of a previous question that was suggested I move into a different post:
What are the abstract properties of a "god" such that atheists can reject it?
Edit: By this I mean give the most general definition that you can without being so general that it exceeds the scope of at...
There's an interesting parallel to this question, against the "incompetent design" argument, so I beg of everyone to allow me to draw this parallel.
The so-called "intelligent design" argument of how we came to be generally posits that life is too complex not to have a designer. Although it's n...
If a user calls someone out for copying an article, that post should deleted: not just amended to add the citation, but deleted.
You know how much original stuff of mine Jeff has wrongly censored. I'm banned from meta.stackoverflow.com for actions that weren't morally offensive to anyone. I ass...