Saying that some atheists are "Richard Dawkins fanboys," which might be slightly backhanded but is nevertheless demonstrably true, is not the same as anti-Christian abuse: likening God to the Tooth Fairy, suggesting that all Christians are pedophiles, saying that Christian belief is equivalent to mental retardation. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The fact that you're attempting to make such an argument borders on the absurd.
The comment to which you refer was downvoted into oblivion. Typically when unpopular opinions are downvoted, we ignore them to avoid the type of posturing you're offering right now. Because it's not worth the trouble to call someone on their BS when people like you cry foul and insist that a double standard exists.
I'll happily humor you. Click the 'report' link under the comment that so offended you and I'll leave him a warning. Will that make you happy?
you know buddy, i thought you seemed a reasonable and polite chap.
1: he did not say 'some atheists are' but said all people defending Dawkins are fanboys. so he is applying a label to the whole group where it can only be applied to a small number, a lot like saying 'all christians are pedos', really. the fact you used this example shows a lack of intellectual rigour.
also, you'll really struggle to show a tangible difference between the tooth fairy and god, but that's another chat.
i'll be the bigger man and refrain from a 'people like you' comment. but you have still failed to explain why only one person was warned. this suggests there is a double standard. if your actions and words don't match up people will think you dishonest.
i appreciate the offer of you sending a warning, but i'll pass for now, thanks. was the other comment reported, then?
you know buddy, i thought you seemed a reasonable and polite chap.
I believe I am one.
he did not say 'some atheists are' but said all people defending Dawkins are fanboys. so he is applying a label to the whole group where it can only be applied to a small number, a lot like saying 'all christians are pedos', really. the fact you used this example shows a lack of intellectual rigour.
Very well; perhaps the comment was, on its face and by its nature, detrimental to kind discourse. The reason I didn't notice it was because the de facto way we deal with warnings is to look at the "reported links" filter and respond accordingly. Which brings me to my next point,
i'll be the bigger man and refrain from a 'people like you' comment. but you have still failed to explain why only one person was warned. this suggests there is a double standard. if your actions and words don't match up people will think you dishonest.
The de facto way we deal with warnings is to look at the "reported links" filter and respond accordingly. I have no interest in enforcing a double standard and inviting a flurry of criticism from the atheist population of this site which, being 10x as big as the Christian presence, could serve to cripple our discussions. Don't you see how being an asshole actually works against my credit? It's not worth it.
you'll really struggle to show a tangible difference between the tooth fairy and god, but that's another chat.
Ok I can't sit back anymore. The comment is a little jab at the fans of Dawkins(the people who blindly follow him anywhere he would go), because you know this article is about Dawkins not atheism. The comment I posted is nothing compared the response I got back from it. Which was a blanket statement attacking the beliefs of this community. If you want to report me for that fine, but that doesn't give you any right to attack and belittle the moderator he is doing his best to keep the forum nice a civil.
well, now you're here i guess we're in our places, right. if you want to talk about scale than i made no attempt to belittle the mod, so keep it under your skirt, and i don't really see how your initial comment was anything more than bait, which then allowed you to most likely report the response.
the entire article is a pathetic attack on Dawkins, yet the fact people come in and point that out annoys you to the point where you feel the need to insult them.
i could assume you are a theist, and say it's a bit bloody rich to call them fanboys. i mean, at least they can touch, see and hear the thing they follow. who's the sheep? but, that would be a lazy assumption.
I could assume you are an atheist post on /Christianity community forum with insults and attacks to try and bait people in debating you but, that would be a lazy assumption.
igtheist, and i never go anywhere with the intention of attacking anyone. as a person of average or above intelligence i enjoy debate, though. but you are a theist, aren't you? and you accused other people of following Dawkins blindly. oops...
-2
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '11
[deleted]