Atheist Public Monument

[McCulloch]

On June 29, the group American Atheists will unveil a 1,500-pound granite bench engraved with secular-themed quotations from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and its founder, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, among others, in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Fla.

The New-Jersey-based group, which has a membership of about 4,000 atheists, humanists, and other non-believers, won the right to erect the monument in a settlement reached in March over a six-ton granite display of the Ten Commandments on the same property.

[...]
Guidelines for privately funded, public monuments on the Bradford County Courthouse lawn require that the monuments commemorate “people, events, and ideas which played a significant role in the development, origins or foundations of United States of America or Florida law, or Bradford County.� Both the Ten Commandments and the atheist monument meet those requirements, Sexton [Will Sexton, an attorney for Bradford County] said.

The atheist monument — which looks like a backwards, lower-case letter “h� — is engraved with the words of several Founding Fathers, as well as a quotation from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797. It reads, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.�

American Atheists president David Silverman will attend the June 29 unveiling. The monument, he said, is his group’s attempt to assert its equality.

“This is not an attack on religion, but rather religion’s monopoly,� he said. “The words on our monument do not deride or mock, but rather they clarify and correct assertions that Christianity has some kind of special place in America over other religious positions. It does not.�

Is this an attack on religion?
Does anyone have an objection to the appropriateness any of the specific quotes:

• “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.â€� -- John Adams
• “An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated.â€� – Madalyn Murray O’Hair
• “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.â€� - Thomas Jefferson
• “It will never be pretended that any person employed in that service [writing the Constitution], had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven.â€� - John Adams
• “Where a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.â€� - Benjamin Franklin

[Darias]

[Replying to post 24 by WinePusher]

Well this isn't really a challenge, but since the post already received MPG recognition, I'm okay with the offending adjective being censored or removed. I probably should have clarified that the religion that I'm paying for was something that offended me, rather than suggesting it as something inherently offensive -- which distracts from my point entirely.

[East of Eden]

Nonsense, the commandments establish no church. We have separation of church and state, not faith and state.

Please read the amendment again. It does not mention church or denomination. Your country has a constitutional separation of state and religion.

Then why did the Founders who wrote the 1A the very next day establish a day of prayer? It seems to blow up your theory.

I will again quote Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution':

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 24:

First of all, please learn to read.

First of all, do try to be more condescending.

The point I was trying to make is that where an atheist expresses her opinion, such is "stupid and moronic", but where I express my opinion that another's notion is "goofy", I get admonished, and where another expresses his opinion of the disgusting nature of another's opinion (hidden behind "my sacred belief and don't y'all pick on me about it), he is admonished.

Alas, being Christian seems to be an opinion, which is a belief, that is afforded protection, while any other opinion is open to sanction.

I called the quote stupid and moronic because it is. It's a purely inflammatory statement that is inaccurate from top to bottom.

That's the single stupidest, most moronic statement I've read on these forums.

Second of all, if you disagree with my assessment you should have posted an argument explaining why you don't think the quote is stupid and then we could have proceeded to have an actual debate.

Actually, I reported the post specifically so I wouldn't be forced to point out how stupid and moronic it was. I seem to have failed in such endeavor.

That is what a sincere, honorable user would do.

I object to your attempt to besmirch my character simply 'cause I didn't respond in a manner you find most comforting.

Where the theist is challenged, it would seem that any and all smears and slanders they can hurl are what they find most comforting.

Third of all, please read the rules for once. All challenges and disagreements with the moderators should be made via PM.

Please tell us all when you became a moderator, that you could make such an off-topic response with impunity.

I have had many disagreements with the moderators and have expressed via PM.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard. Please present pertinent PMs for analysis.

1st challenge.

Apparently you think you're outside the rules and that you can do whatever you want. All you've done here is derail the thread with your complaining.

I seem to have been in error before, for surely this is the stupidest, most moronic statement I've seen on these forums.

Pot, meet kettle.

[WinePusher]

First of all, please learn to read.

First of all, do try to be more condescending.

I wasn't trying to be condescending.

The point I was trying to make is that where an atheist expresses her opinion, such is "stupid and moronic", but where I express my opinion that another's notion is "goofy", I get admonished, and where another expresses his opinion of the disgusting nature of another's opinion (hidden behind "my sacred belief and don't y'all pick on me about it), he is admonished.

I don't care about your problems? The fact is you violated the rules. Besides, if you had a little patience and waited a little longer the moderators might have very well intervened and condemned my language. The fact of the matter is, however, that I wasn't personally attacking anybody, I was attacking a quote. I know of no rule that says anything to the contrary. Besides, that was much more to my post than that one statement.

And this is an internet forum. This isn't real life. I don't know why you care so much about other users.

I called the quote stupid and moronic because it is. It's a purely inflammatory statement that is inaccurate from top to bottom.

That's the single stupidest, most moronic statement I've read on these forums.

Ok? Explain WHY you think that. That way we can actually have a debate.

Why do you even participate on this forum? You're clearly not interested in debating ideas with other people, if you were you would have responded to my post with a rebuttal. Instead you chose to report it. That is not productive in any way.

Second of all, if you disagree with my assessment you should have posted an argument explaining why you don't think the quote is stupid and then we could have proceeded to have an actual debate.

Actually, I reported the post specifically so I wouldn't be forced to point out how stupid and moronic it was. I seem to have failed in such endeavor.

So why do you have an account? If all you want to do is report other people and and try to embarras them what's the point?

Like I said, you're really the only person I've seen do this. Other users, like myself, give detailed and substantive responses to topics. If I see a post I don't like I rebutt it, I write a post explaining why I disagree.

You haven't even given a substantive response to the topic, all you've done is derail it with your complaining.

That is what a sincere, honorable user would do.

I object to your attempt to besmirch my character simply 'cause I didn't respond in a manner you find most comforting.

I'm not the only person who finds your debating 'mannerism's questionable. I think the entire forum would agree that the way you debate is not productive.

Where the theist is challenged, it would seem that any and all smears and slanders they can hurl are what they find most comforting.

I don't smear and slander people. I've been involved in many debate threads on this forum and while I do use strong, confrontational language I always try to address the issue and provide my insights and opinions on the topic. You don't, this thread is a perfect example.

Third of all, please read the rules for once. All challenges and disagreements with the moderators should be made via PM.

Please tell us all when you became a moderator, that you could make such an off-topic response with impunity.

Who the hell said I was a moderator? I don't want to be a moderator, I have far better things to do with my time. I am familiar with the rules though, and the rules state that objections to moderator actions should be expressed via PM. You don't have to be a moderator to understand the rules.

I have had many disagreements with the moderators and have expressed via PM.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard. Please present pertinent PMs for analysis.

1st challenge.

Another example of what I mean.

By the way, I already know what your response is going to be and let me just say that I have supported more claims than you can ever hope to imagine. The problem with your challenge is that they're called PRIVATE MESSAGES for a reason.

And your response will be something along the lines of "It's not my fault if Christians are unable to support their claims." (so predictable )

Apparently you think you're outside the rules and that you can do whatever you want. All you've done here is derail the thread with your complaining.

I seem to have been in error before, for surely this is the stupidest, most moronic statement I've seen on these forums.

Again, EXPLAIN WHY. These are just blanketed statements. Explain yourself for once, explain why you thought my initial statement was wrong.

If you had responded to my post by saying that you thought my language was uncalled for and that I should tone it down then that would have been entirely appropriate. I would have retracted those terms and went back and edited them out. And if you had actually written a post that was relevant to the topic we could have had a real debate. You chose to take the low road and violate the rules, and derail the thread at the same time.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 27:

...
I don't care about your problems?

I don't know, do you?

The fact is you violated the rules.

As did you by responding to my post, which you swear is in some violation of the rules.

It is my position my argument ties into the OP, if only folks'd find it in their heart to ask my why I think it does. Instead, we get all manner of how I've violated the rules, as you respond to a post you declare "off topic".

Stupid and moronic.

Besides, if you had a little patience and waited a little longer the moderators might have very well intervened and condemned my language.

I don't doubt you'da preferred your own stupid, moronic statement might be missed.

The fact of the matter is, however, that I wasn't personally attacking anybody, I was attacking a quote.

Of course not, the theist who declares something "stupid, moronic" is perfectly within his rights, but woe be upon the atheist who declares a statement "goofy", or "disgusting".

I know of no rule that says anything to the contrary. Besides, that was much more to my post than that one statement.

I agree there was much more stupid and moronity to the post in question.

And this is an internet forum. This isn't real life.

You sure you ain't Ric Romero?

I don't know why you care so much about other users.

I take no blame for your lack of knowledge.

Ok? Explain WHY you think that.

I won't be prodded into debating in a manner of your choosing. I'm perfectly capable of presenting my argument on my own, and will not accept responsibility for other's not understanding the data put before them.

That way we can actually have a debate.

What "debate" is there when one's "beliefs" are held so sacred folks get in trouble for speaking against 'em, as the other'n there's allowed to hurl any derogations they wish?

Why do you even participate on this forum?

To expose the theist's expectation of special privilege, among other whys.

You're clearly not interested in debating ideas with other people, if you were you would have responded to my post with a rebuttal. Instead you chose to report it.

And you're obviously incapable of knowing debate when it occurs, as expressed by here we sit a-doin' it, only you can't tell we are.

That is not productive in any way.

Your inability to find "productive" in a conversation is an issue you'll hafta deal with on your own.

I've found this exchange quite "productive".

So why do you have an account?

One must have an account in order to post.

Please do try to keep up.

If all you want to do is report other people and and try to embarras them what's the point?

"If", the last refuge of the theist.

Like I said, you're really the only person I've seen do this.

It's nice to know you consider me unique.

I will not change my methods simply to bring comfort to folks.

Other users, like myself, give detailed and substantive responses to topics.

"Substantive" being as subjective as any subjective deal ever sat there being all subjective.

If I see a post I don't like I rebutt it, I write a post explaining why I disagree.

When you get home, you tell Momma I said give you a cookie.

You haven't even given a substantive response to the topic, all you've done is derail it with your complaining.

Your inability to find substance in the data put before you is a condition you'll either hafta correct, or die with.

I'm not the only person who finds your debating 'mannerism's questionable.

I find it upsets many a theist for me to utter a word.

I think the entire forum would agree that the way you debate is not productive.

Now you've hurt my feeling.

Whether the "entire forum" found my input productive or not, I contend it would have little to no bearing on the matter at hand - that matter being the "kid glove" treatment offered to "precious beliefs".

I propose your "thinker" may be out of kilter, or, your statement is just another in a long line of stupid moronity.

I dare say there's at least one member on this site who 'preciates me.

I don't smear and slander people. I've been involved in many debate threads on this forum and while I do use strong, confrontational language I always try to address the issue and provide my insights and opinions on the topic. You don't, this thread is a perfect example.

Your inability to see that my comments are indeed reflective of this OP is a condition you'll hafta fix on your own.

Who the hell said I was a moderator? I don't want to be a moderator, I have far better things to do with my time. I am familiar with the rules though, and the rules state that objections to moderator actions should be expressed via PM. You don't have to be a moderator to understand the rules.

But ya do gotta be one to enforce 'em.

Pray tell, when have you reported my comments in this thread as being in violation of forum rules, as opposed to playing pretend moderator?

Another example of what I mean.

By the way, I already know what your response is going to be and let me just say that I have supported more claims than you can ever hope to imagine. The problem with your challenge is that they're called PRIVATE MESSAGES for a reason.

Yet you fail to support your claim regarding mods and disagreements, and PMs, and such manner as that.

I propose it is errant to make a claim in debate, and then complain about having that claim challenged, all the while refusing to retract or support the claim in question.

Let's call this the 2nd challenge.

And your response will be something along the lines of "It's not my fault if Christians are unable to support their claims." (so predictable Laughing)

I propose that if it weren't so "predictable" that Christians expect to be believed simply 'cause they have a voicebox, maybe it ain't such a wonder why they're so upset to find their claims challenged in a debate environment.

You made a claim. I challenged it. Instead of offering excuses as to why you can't show you speak truth, perhaps you'd be willing to do the -to use your phrase- "honorable" thing and just fess on up here in front of God and everybody.

Again, EXPLAIN WHY.

I'm not here to explain the English language to you. I am of the utmost confidence the observer of average intelligence can understand my posts. I use the term "average" here in a strictly clinical sense. Where the observer considers WinePusher average or above, the observer'll go to questioning my take on things.

These are just blanketed statements. Explain yourself for once, explain why you thought my initial statement was wrong.

It was "stupid and moronic".

If you had responded to my post by saying that you thought my language was uncalled for and that I should tone it down then that would have been entirely appropriate.

I propose your statement here is just trying to butter the biscuits after they've done been ate.

I would have retracted those terms and went back and edited them out.

I dare say if you "would have", ya'da just gone and done it and be done with it.

And if you had actually written a post that was relevant to the topic we could have had a real debate.

Yet another stupid, moronic statement, borne of a lack of understanding that I consider my posts thusfar to be quite on point.

It is my firm conviction this thread stands as the ultimate "Atheist Monument", where we see the theist is allowed to denigrate another's notion, while the theist is protected in his.

You chose to take the low road and violate the rules, and derail the thread at the same time.

The only thing your looking down your nose at me indicates is that you're a-standing on your head.

[bjs]

I do not see this as an attack on religion. At least I don’t feel attacked.

I take it that this government land was a place where private citizen are allowed to erect permanent monuments? Assuming that is true, I am all for the American Atheists exercising their right to build this monument.

I find the quotes to be an odd mix. As a Christian I find that, generally speaking, I agree with all of them. But I am surprised that atheists would be good with them. Several non-theists on this forum have said things along the lines of “atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in any god.� If that is true, shouldn’t they be opposed to O’Hair’s comment? The quote from Franklin goes so far as to suggest that there is a God – isn’t that opposite of atheistic belief? – and only complains against believers wanting to be supported by the government.

[WinePusher]

I don't care about your problems?

I don't know, do you?

No, I do not care about you or any other user on this internet forum in any way, shape or form. You're complaining about the behavior of other users and I'm simply saying that this is an internet forum. Who cares? Do you not have a real life? Is that why you care so much about what other people do over the internet?

The fact is you violated the rules.

As did you by responding to my post, which you swear is in some violation of the rules.

You obviously have never read the rules. You're clearly upset that the moderators did not intervene and condemn my language, and you posted a public response to otseng's post. That is against the rules. The rules state that this needs to be done over PM. At the same time you derailed a debate thread with your complaining. The fact is that you do nothing to better the standard of debate on this site, you only diminish it.

Besides, if you had a little patience and waited a little longer the moderators might have very well intervened and condemned my language.

I don't doubt you'da preferred your own stupid, moronic statement might be missed.

I never said that I wanted my post to be missed. I said that if you had waited longer the moderators might have intervened. I don't know why you have such a hard time with reading comprehension. Do you even have a college degree, or even a high schol diploma? Or let me guess, you dropped out in the middle of elementary school?

I know of no rule that says anything to the contrary. Besides, that was much more to my post than that one statement.

I agree there was much more stupid and moronity to the post in question.

Hah, now you're just being malicious. By the way, 'moronity' is not a word. How ironic, but you're probably not smart enough to know what irony is huh?

And this is an internet forum. This isn't real life.

You sure you ain't Ric Romero?

You're speaking nonsense like usual. Please get a real life so that you can stop obsessing about people over the internet.

I don't know why you care so much about other users.

I take no blame for your lack of knowledge.

We both know that I am more knowledgable than you can ever hope to be, and the sad thing is that I'm only 24 years old and you're 97 years old.

Ok? Explain WHY you think that.

I won't be prodded into debating in a manner of your choosing. I'm perfectly capable of presenting my argument on my own, and will not accept responsibility for other's not understanding the data put before them.

No, the fact of the matter is that you don't know how to debate. It's that simple. You probably never took a debating class in your entire life. Let's do a H2H debate. Here's your chance to prove the entire forum wrong. Here's your chance to actually show everyone you're smart and know how to debate. We can do any legitimate topic regarding religion, science, politics, etc. We can debate the resurrection, the historical accuracy of the new testament, intelligent design, the kalam cosmological argument, any economic issue (wealth inequality, free markets, environmental economics, welfare economics, monetary policy, keynes, hayek, marx) any poltical issue whether it's about abortion, immigration, national security, the iraq war, obama, American culture, etc.

Why do you even participate on this forum?

To expose the theist's expectation of special privilege, among other whys.

Lol. So you're here to expose theist's expectations of special privilege. Great, thank you.

You're clearly not interested in debating ideas with other people, if you were you would have responded to my post with a rebuttal. Instead you chose to report it.

And you're obviously incapable of knowing debate when it occurs, as expressed by here we sit a-doin' it, only you can't tell we are.

This is not a real debate it's so sad that you actually think it is.

I've found this exchange quite "productive".

Of course you did. You're not debating a real issue (like abortion) you're not presenting detailed arguments and analysis, and you're not defending a position. All you've done is derail the thread trying to make a point about moderator unfairness. And you think that's productive .

So why do you have an account?

One must have an account in order to post.

Please do try to keep up.

But you never post anything of real value. You never offer new ideas about topics. You never offer interesting perspectives and insights. So, since we've established that your posts are worthless, why do you have an account?

If I see a post I don't like I rebutt it, I write a post explaining why I disagree.

When you get home, you tell Momma I said give you a cookie.

This is facetious and personal since my mother is deceased. You have no shame, or knowledge, whatsoever. Your mother (if she is still alive, if not I'm sorry for your loss) must be ashamed she gave birth to a child who ended up becoming a failure in life and who spends his adult days trolling over the internet instead of doing something productive.

[Goat]

I do not see this as an attack on religion. At least I don’t feel attacked.

I take it that this government land was a place where private citizen are allowed to erect permanent monuments? Assuming that is true, I am all for the American Atheists exercising their right to build this monument.

I find the quotes to be an odd mix. As a Christian I find that, generally speaking, I agree with all of them. But I am surprised that atheists would be good with them. Several non-theists on this forum have said things along the lines of “atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in any god.� If that is true, shouldn’t they be opposed to O’Hair’s comment? The quote from Franklin goes so far as to suggest that there is a God – isn’t that opposite of atheistic belief? – and only complains against believers wanting to be supported by the government.

Well, there is the 'I don't believe there is a God', and then there is "I believe there is no God'.

In my view, the difference between 'I don't believe there is a God' verses 'I believer there is no God' is an emotional reaction. The 'i don't believer there is a God' is a more neutral statement. .. and it is a more reasoned and rational position. The 'I believe there is no God' is a more gut reaction. I can see the position 'I don't believe there is any god' something that you can reason yourself into due to the lack of tangible evidence, while 'I believe there is no God' goes one step further.

Gnosticism for both theists and atheists is an emotional reaction.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 31:

No, I do not care about you or any other user on this internet forum in any way, shape or form. You're complaining about the behavior of other users and I'm simply saying that this is an internet forum. Who cares? Do you not have a real life? Is that why you care so much about what other people do over the internet?

Stupid and moronic.

You've been carrying on with me for just as much of this as I've been carrying on with you for the same just as much of it.

Why do you care, if not to ensure the Christian is afforded their luxury of calling others' notions "stupid and moronic", while those others get them a getting onto for similar phrasing?

You obviously have never read the rules.

I object, yet again, to your attempt to besmirch my character. Upon signing up for this site I admitted to reading the rules. Your attempt to imply I've not done so is but one more example of the Christian seeking to smear and slander all who disagree.

You're clearly upset that the moderators did not intervene and condemn my language, and you posted a public response to otseng's post. That is against the rules.

You're "clearly" incapable of understanding that I presented a statement of fact - the theist is allowed to call "stupid, moronic" at will regarding another's notions, but woe be upon the atheist who dares declare Christian notions "disgusting". This is NOT a challenge to a ruling, but a simple presentation of fact.

The rules state that this needs to be done over PM.

Then how come you ain't sent me a PM about it?

At the same time you derailed a debate thread with your complaining.

It is my firm conviction that if I've "derailed" this thread, it wasn't near as damaging as your continuing to push from the back end of the train. That said, I'm on record as saying I consider my comments pertinent to the OP, no matter how much you swear up and down it ain't.

It is my firm conviction that pretending to be a moderator ain't it the least bit better'n being "stupid and moronic" of thought, statement, or any such as that what don't upset the Christian too danged much for the telling.

The fact is that you do nothing to better the standard of debate on this site...

The fact is that you seem to think your subjective determination of "better the standard" should apply to all.

The fact is that you keep carrying on about how I've broached the rules, while you've not reported a single post as in violation.

It is my firm conviction that only the stupid and moronic of thought or statement would ever complain about folks violationing some subjective standard, but only they can't be bothered to click the one button that might put a stop to it.

you only diminish it.

I'll not take blame for your inability or refusal to either understand or accept my argument, especially as you play moderator for pretend, but can't find it in you to click the one button that might cause it a ruling from the ones who actually are it for reals.

I'll also not take blame for your insistence that your subjective judgment alone should be the "standard of debate" on a site you ain't either you're a moderator, or anyone other'n just upset as all get out that some folks'd disagree.

I never said that I wanted my post to be missed. I said that if you had waited longer the moderators might have intervened.

Mine is NOT a challenge to their previous ruling, but a pointing out of fact... "Stupid, moronic" is finer'n frog hair, but don't you dare call Christian belief "disgusting"!

I don't know why you have such a hard time with reading comprehension.

I'll not be held responsible for your lack of knowledge.

I feel confident the observer of average intelligence'll have me comprehending all that which needs it some comprehending. "Average intelligence" to note some are indeed doltish, while others ain't, and some are so far from it you couldn't sling a rock and hit 'em from doltville, if you stood in ain'tdoltvile when ya did it.

Do you even have a college degree, or even a high schol diploma?

No.

Please now, tell us all how my lack of either indicates that "stupid, moronic" is the height of "education", but "disgusting", well, that's just, "stupid, moronic".

Or let me guess, you dropped out in the middle of elementary school?

Nope.

Upon entering the eighth grade (Junior High, lo, those many moons ago), I found it far more convenient to eat than I did to go to school with my stomach growling so much all the cheerleader chicks thought I was just busting out with the school spirit.

I agree there was much more stupid and moronity to the post in question.

Hah, now you're just being malicious.

Yet another stupid, moronic example for the Atheist Monument.

By the way, 'moronity' is not a word.

No word was ever it a word 'til it got it its first utterance.

How ironic, but you're probably not smart enough to know what irony is huh?

I propose I'm smart enough to know a new word when I come across one.

You're speaking nonsense like usual.

Your inability to make sense of the data put before you is not my responsibility.

Please get a real life so that you can stop obsessing about people over the internet.

Ironical.

Considering you've met me post for post up to at least here.

We both know that I am more knowledgable than you can ever hope to be, and the sad thing is that I'm only 24 years old and you're 97 years old.

I dare say, those with knowledge have no need in carrying on about how much of it they have.

And a good bunch of 'em wouldn't misspell it if'n they felt they needed to anyhow.

I've yet to see you present your collegiate credentials, by the way.

Please note, one's age is not a sound indicator of knowledge.

No, the fact of the matter is that you don't know how to debate.

The fact of the matter is that you ain't so proud of my responses, and you for danged sure ain't no moderator, and you for danged sure will never get me to debate in a manner you find most comforting, just for your pleading I oughta.

Yet again I will say to you, owing to your young age, your Dunning-Krugeresque "I'm college folk and y'all ain't" mentality, and your stupid, moronic pretending of the to be a moderator....

I will NOT be kowtowed into debating on any terms other'n I've accepted upon admittance to this site. I will NOT be goaded into debating in your preferred manner, simply 'cause that's the only manner you know for the how to debate.

You'll either quit pretending to be a moderator...


Or you'll forever be upsetter'n a hog with his gonads in a fire he didn't even set that I don't play along with your demands.


I will now ask you, respectfully, with all manner of cordiality, and if you need it, I'll buy you a great big bunch of flowers, and a ham biscuit...


But you need to stop with the accusations of nefarity and rule breaking on my part. You need to grow up, young lad (as related to that whole "I'm 24, and you're 97, no matter that folks ain't gotta be honest or accurate when they put them down them a birthday), and accept the fact that until you report any offending post on my part, and we get us a ruling - that I will continue to debate in the manner of my choosing.

It's that simple.

I propose that only those who think only in the simple'd ever think human interaction is just that.

You probably never took a debating class in your entire life.

Dude, I was married.

I wasn't in a classroom, hoping I was right, thinking about it, I was up to my knees in rice paddies, with guns that didn't work! Going in there, looking for Charlie, slugging it out with him; While people like you were back here partying, putting headbands on, doing drugs, and listening to those dadgum Beatle albums! Oh! Oh! Oh!
(we miss you Sam)

Let's do a H2H debate.

I'll debate in the manner I deem fit, thankyouverymuch.

Unless it's the merits of the old lady expects me to work outside all day, with the garden and the weeding, and why the heck am I feeding cats I do my danged best to kick, and it's all 'cause she cleans the house and all that, and if it's my house, ought'n I be the king of it, but oh no, no, she carries that there with her, and if I'm ever just to get me a peek of it, I'll do as she says, and am I really a man if I let her get away with it. On such a condition, I can't protest to be a man too danged much.

Here's your chance to prove the entire forum wrong.

I'm unaware of any instance where you've show the "entire forum" was right - 'cept for your swearing up and down they's every last one of 'em with you on this deal - but only, and don't it beat all, all you've shown for that is you can utter it, you just can't show any of it's truth.

Here's your chance to actually show everyone you're smart and know how to debate.

I don't need folks to think I'm smart, as indicated by my not swearing up and down how much of it I am. But do please don't tell the old lady I ain't, for I suffer her glares enough as it is.

I propose your position here is a bit of a "stupid, moronic" projection, where you feel the need to flout your as yet unconfirmed collegiate credentials, in order to try to convince folks that upon the credentializationing alone does anyone ever escape the grasp of the dread "stupid and moronic".

We can do any legitimate topic regarding religion, science, politics, etc. We can debate the resurrection, the historical accuracy of the new testament, intelligent design, the kalam cosmological argument, any economic issue (wealth inequality, free markets, environmental economics, welfare economics, monetary policy, keynes, hayek, marx) any poltical issue whether it's about abortion, immigration, national security, the iraq war, obama, American culture, etc.

How magnanimous of you to declare for all of us what constitutes "legitimate" topics for debate.

How 'bout we debate the merits of exchanging BC Bud one for one with quality cocaine, and how might Jesus felt about it if we did, and we didn't cut him in for his take?

Lol. So you're here to expose theist's expectations of special privilege. Great, thank you.

You're welcome. While -to use your term- ironically you don't see your expectation of privilege in any of this.

This is not a real debate it's so sad that you actually think it is.

It can't ever be it a real debate lest it's done according to your own subjective and arbitrary (read "stupid, moronic") rules, can it?

Of course you did. You're not debating a real issue (like abortion) you're not presenting detailed arguments and analysis, and you're not defending a position.

Pray tell, what are you doing arguing about all this, then?

All you've done is derail the thread trying to make a point about moderator unfairness. And you think that's productive

I agree that my subjective determination about what makes all this productive is bound to my subjective determination of it being all productivy.

I find you assert that it ain't productive until you, in your stupid, moronic statements, declare it to be "productive".

But you never post anything of real value.

Stupid and moronic statement, indicative of one incapable of seeing any value in human conversation.

You never offer new ideas about topics.

Then by all means, please point us to where the issue of "stupid, moronic" has come up before, and let's all see about it.

You never offer interesting perspectives and insights.

I don't doubt that challenging the Christian is to bore him.

So, since we've established that your posts are worthless, why do you have an account?

I object to your repeated attempts to cast aspersions on my character, but have come to expect that only the stupid and moronic of thought or statement suffer them so much of it, they can't glean them worth from debate.

Yet again you accuse me of, or imply that I'm in violation of forum rules.

Please explain to us all how the stupid and moronic accusations you present against me should be held valid in light of your fear and cowardice in presenting offending posts for moderator rulings.

This is facetious and personal since my mother is deceased.

Given your previous unsupported claims in this thread, surely you'll excuse me for not believing this'n for the mere fact you did the declaring of it.

You have no shame, or knowledge, whatsoever.

I have just enough shame in me to tell you to kiss my fourth point of contact for accusing me - in your typical, refuse to support claims style of having no knowledge.

I have the knowledge that you can present you claim after claim after claim, but don't it beat all, just as soon as you get called on 'em, you go to carrying on about how that mean ol' JoeyKnothead is a-calling you on 'em.

I propose that your previous accusation of "stupid, moronic" is a clear and obvious example of your own!

Your mother (if she is still alive, if not I'm sorry for your loss) must be ashamed she gave birth to a child who ended up becoming a failure in life and who spends his adult days trolling over the internet instead of doing something productive.

My mom's too ugly, if not too old, for me to wanna have sex with, but at least she didn't raise me to think just making a claim is the be all and end all of debate.

[WinePusher]

Your mother (if she is still alive, if not I'm sorry for your loss) must be ashamed she gave birth to a child who ended up becoming a failure in life and who spends his adult days trolling over the internet instead of doing something productive.

My mom's too ugly, if not too old, for me to wanna have sex with, but at least she didn't raise me to think just making a claim is the be all and end all of debate.

I just want to get this quoted in case you decide to go back and edit your post. I never mentioned your mother and sex in the same sentence. I never mentioned sex at all. The fact that you've thought about having sex with your mother is sick. If you have these kinds of thoughts you are sick and need psychiatric help.

Edit:

How 'bout we debate the merits of exchanging BC Bud one for one with quality cocaine, and how might Jesus felt about it if we did, and we didn't cut him in for his take?

I see. You have a drug problem, is that it? That explains ALOT. Well sorry, but I know nothing about cocaine. I smoked an occasional joint back when, but that's pretty much it. And I did preface my debate challenge with the word 'legitimate' because I knew you'd propose some dumb debate topic like this one.

The fact is you know nothing about any academic subjects, such as science or religion or politics, and therefore you obviously are to afraid to debate them.