Nick Against the World (71 Viewers)

[Bjerknes]

It's funny to see Tom bash Swag and tell him he's not being objective enough...Greg is the most objective poster on this forum.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Respaul]

Swag, can you please explain how you come to the conclusion that being a person who follows no religion and is not of faith does actually make you religious...

Also how exactly you make the opposite of hate to be apathy...


You really stretched the elastic with that post... You should move into politics mate....

 

[Respaul]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
Greg is the most objective poster on this forum.

Hows that ?

His post wasnt objective in this case... and how objective was he over the dying business a little while ago...

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++


Hows that ?

His post wasnt objective in this case... and how objective was he over the dying business a little while ago...

How's that? My honest opinion.

Nobody else on this forum can see both sides the way he can...he's American yet he sees all issues involving our country....he's not a firm believer in religion yet he is not so quick to bash either side of the argument. Please name me a more objective poster on this forum..

 

[The Pado]

Shadow, you have toss pots over there?



* Note to self *



How deep are they, typically?

 

[Respaul]

All shapes and sizes mate

 

[Respaul]

++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++

Please name me a more objective poster on this forum..

Personally... I dont think theres an objective poster to be found on this forum...

Swag imo is a great poster and the best mod we have... But i dont see him as being anymore objective than everyone else...

As hes shown on a few occasions... he like everyone else has many issues where objectivity is thrown out... He posts it in a more masked way than many, but its still clearly there...


Thats not a criticism by the way... everyone is the same...

 

[Bjerknes]

Well, I think Greg is spot on in this case, obviously, and it's good to know that somebody who does not share our beliefs can see what Tom is doing.

 

[Respaul]

What exactly is tom doing ??

He has given his opinion on religion... so what ?

Is his reaction to religion any different to those that react to his lack of religion.... I cant see a real diference... Where people have said on this board that they feel sorry for him because he is not a man of religion... is that not the same belittling and ridiculing of his beliefs that are being frowned upon here....

 

[Seven]

You can ban me right away, Swag, but banning Centro was ridiculous to say the least. Saying it's possible that Jesus was a thug, who lived in the margin of Jewish society is not something that you should get banned for. Neither is reacting to a personal attack. That's right, Tifoso Lou attacked Centro. Banning him was biased, unfair, cruel and idiotic. Centro should be able to give his own opinion towards religion and you stopped him from doing that. Freedom of speech became a humanitary right a long time ago, pal.

 

[Amash]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++
You can ban me right away, Swag, but banning Centro was ridiculous to say the least. Saying it's possible that Jesus was a thug, who lived in the margin of Jewish society is not something that you should get banned for. Neither is reacting to a personal attack. That's right, Tifoso Lou attacked Centro. Banning him was biased, unfair, cruel and idiotic. Centro should be able to give his own opinion towards religion and you stopped him from doing that. Freedom of speech became a humanitary right a long time ago, pal.

Agreed 1000%

 

[swag]

++ [ originally posted by Tom ] ++


I would have thought you could do better than churn out the same bullshit as the others but here we go again. Interesting that you think lack of religion is in itself a religion. I can't for the life of me see why, but perhaps I'm just not as educated as you, wise one. Not believeing in a religion cannot be a religion.. the whole point of not being religious is just that.. you don't believe in what the other religions put across, you don't believe in a separate god of your own, so you are NOT religious, you do not follow a religion of any kind.

As said before I don't mind if people criticise my lack of faith with the same abruptness and scathing tone as I have theirs, its a free world, its an internet forum where you are supposed to debate as far as I am aware. I don't think I have sperior views, simply that they are the only common sense option available to me. There is no evidence that any of these religions have a basis in reality yet I am criticised for saying so, as if I should feel guilty about upsetting people's feelings and somewhat inferior for not believing. Which is texactly the crime you accuse me of. If you're not happy with the way I debate things, you could at least be a tad more objective and criticise your american buddies too. If thats not beyond you, it would be a refreshing change of direction.

Anyway saying I have a jihad, and comparing me to suicide bombers just goes to show you're as bad as Nick and Andy, shame to say it.

I honestly have no agenda against you here, Tom. I'm just trying to hold up a mirror.

You have your own belief system -- call it a belief in science (historically proven to be riddled with errors due to man's fallibility and the pace of scientific discovery), a belief in the evidence-based critical thinking of mankind, a belief based on a lack of compelling evidence to you, or a belief you feel at the core of your being. Any belief system requires faith in the believer -- because man's ability to ascertain any absolute truths, let alone omniscience, is fatally flawed.

That belief system deserves every bit as much respect as that of an impassioned imam, pope, prophet, or Bhuddist monk. And you can be as thoroughly convinced in the righteousness and clear truth behind your belief system as they are of theirs. But yet you don't seem to see the parallels to yourself, even if any and all of the above say, "Well, they're all idiots and believe in foolish falsehoods, because obviously I am right."

 

[Tom]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
Silvio's not a toss pot...

Are we talking literally here or.. ?

I was being light when I said tosspot, I don't know the man thankfully but thats the way he comes across from what I've seen, an arrogant tosspot.

 

[JCK]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++
... Banning him was biased, unfair, cruel and idiotic. ...

You remind me of Hobbes.

 

[JCK]

Pardon my ignorance but what does toss pot mean? Literally and hypothetically.

 

[Tom]

++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++


I honestly have no agenda against you here, Tom. I'm just trying to hold up a mirror.

You have your own belief system -- call it a belief in science (historically proven to be riddled with errors due to man's fallibility and the pace of scientific discovery), a belief in the evidence-based critical thinking of mankind, a belief based on a lack of compelling evidence to you, or a belief you feel at the core of your being. Any belief system requires faith in the believer -- because man's ability to ascertain any absolute truths, let alone omniscience, is fatally flawed.

That belief system deserves every bit as much respect as that of an impassioned imam, pope, prophet, or Bhuddist monk. And you can be as thoroughly convinced in the righteousness and clear truth behind your belief system as they are of theirs. But yet you don't seem to see the parallels to yourself, even if any and all of the above say, "Well, they're all idiots and believe in foolish falsehoods, because obviously I am right."

ah thats more like it

I'll respond when I get up tomorrow, am off out now unfortunately for you lot

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
What exactly is tom doing ??

He has given his opinion on religion... so what ?

Is his reaction to religion any different to those that react to his lack of religion.... I cant see a real diference... Where people have said on this board that they feel sorry for him because he is not a man of religion... is that not the same belittling and ridiculing of his beliefs that are being frowned upon here....

Just as Seven with his poor timing, Tom can have his opinions but he let them be known at the most disrespectful and inflammatory time. From what I saw, he made his opinions just to get on the nerves of others, and that is why people do not respect the guy. And I have not even begin to touch on his superior overtones while talking about the subject of religion. As I stated earlier, the quotes I posted speak for themselves.

 

[Bjerknes]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++
You can ban me right away, Swag, but banning Centro was ridiculous to say the least. Saying it's possible that Jesus was a thug, who lived in the margin of Jewish society is not something that you should get banned for. Neither is reacting to a personal attack. That's right, Tifoso Lou attacked Centro. Banning him was biased, unfair, cruel and idiotic. Centro should be able to give his own opinion towards religion and you stopped him from doing that. Freedom of speech became a humanitary right a long time ago, pal.

Yet all indications lead us to believe it's your dual account...oh well.

 

[swag]

++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++
You can ban me right away, Swag, but banning Centro was ridiculous to say the least. Saying it's possible that Jesus was a thug, who lived in the margin of Jewish society is not something that you should get banned for. Neither is reacting to a personal attack. That's right, Tifoso Lou attacked Centro. Banning him was biased, unfair, cruel and idiotic. Centro should be able to give his own opinion towards religion and you stopped him from doing that. Freedom of speech became a humanitary right a long time ago, pal.

You don't get it, do you. I actually would agree with some of the things "Centro" wrote. And while others found it inflammatory, I found it perfectly reasonable -- even if they are difficult words to hear from another person's opinion, which deserves to be respected. The mods received a number of complaints from others over the content, but I didn't think any of those were any grounds for a ban, IMO. He wouldn't have lasted as long as he had without being banned by me if that wasn't the case. (It's not as if just yesterday he decided to post something provocative.)

So I have no objection over the content. One of my objections was over presentation. A poster could be raving about Snow White for all I care about, but if he did it in such a way as to continually antagonize others with malicious intent and by using repeated disrespect of others, that would not be acceptable.

But even that wasn't sufficient enough for me to ban Centro in itself. The "circumstantial" evidence between you and your so-called brother as being anything but a duplicate account had risen to the level of ridiculousness. Whether your so-called brother or not, the Centro account was being abused repeatedly to the extent it was a general detriment to the overall welfare of the forums.

I honestly wish "he" could have been more critical of ideas and less critical of people. (And it's not to say that the others who engaged the other side of the flame wars here are haloed saints here either.) But it obviously was only going to get worse from what already was an unacceptable situation.

 

[Seven]

Look, swag, if you banned him because you think he was a dual account, please ban me. I've been far worse than Centro in my time on the forum and it's not fair that my brother gets banned because of me. That way you'll be sure there are no dual accounts as well.