Look, everyone defending mswas.
There are two options.
If he actually believes his OP is a good description of what atheists believe, then he’s an idiot.
If he doesn’t actually believe it, then he’s a troll.
Either way, he’s a major douche.
Why is opening a thread in GD evidence of being open to debate? Witnessing goes on there constantly, and mswas is certainly historically interested in making provocative or controversial statements without any intention of backing them up.
For some reason, I’ve thought mswas was a woman. Am I wrong?
Male or female, mswas is a fantastically stupid person. Unfortunately, he or she provides an additional example of a religious person completely incapable of thinking rationally about religion.
They have. Instead of responding to any of them, he comes back after a page and a half and addresses a one sentence driveby. I don’t know if that makes him a troll, necessarily, but it does make the value of trying to debate him highly questionable.
I don’t think you’re looking at the thread linked in the OP, since mswas responded in posts 4 & 5. They appear to me to be fairly substantial and to be addressing the replies he had received thus far.
We’re doing that, too.
Followed by a page and a half, like Miller said, after which he just responded to Miller’s post.
A Dichotomy is only a false one if there are, in fact, more than two options. Can you offer a different one from a) mswas believes their OP or b) mswas does not believe their OP? Note that the conclusions drawn from these are irrelevant to the bifurcation - you’re asserting, with your shitty* rebuttal, that there’s some unexplored third option, at least.
*Just posting a link without any wording of your own is pretty fucking shitty internet debating. Snotty and condescending. And yes, it’s the Pit, but you were the one who dragged logical fallacies in here.
3.) He’s taking a position with which he doesn’t necessarily agree for the purposes of starting a discussion.
Was that so hard?
What else needed to be said?
I think I see how this works. If a person starts a thread in GD, they must stay by the computer for at least the next 96 hours, obsessively hitting F5 to refresh the page and see if anyone posted anything to which they can respond.
Give me a fucking break.
Yes, that’s exactly the opposite of picking one post out of 3 dozen to choose to respond to. (I do take note that since then, mswas has provided slightly more on-topic responses to some general elements of others’ arguments.)
No, that is a mistaken apprehension. Really what you are doing is whining about how I hurt your ‘feewings’.
Here is my understanding of atheism:
Atheist: A person who does not believe in God.
Did I get that right?
Even though I said I wasn’t talking about any of you, some of you came back still hoping I’d stamp your feeling validation ticket. 
Basically the thread started as a result of the discussion about whether or not Christians were big on personal responsibility. Der Trihs made some pompous declarations about what was moral and immoral. So I decided to start a thread from the voice of a burgeoning atheist attempting to decide whether morality had a place in his life.
The response I got was a bunch of pompous declarations about morals and more intolerant insults at religions I have never made claim to adhere to personally.
The Xenu’s Pair o’Docks thing is a joke about Scientology. It’s a play on Zeno’s paradox, and a play on words regarding the notion of Xenu the mind controlling demon, and the fact that Scientologists are obsessed with boats. It’s conflating the paradox of dual aspect monism with the idea that L. Ron Hubbard the author of Scientology and Xenu are separate entities.
That and I am convinced that I take the Straight Dope a whole lot less seriously than I believe many of you do.
You’re right, my bifurcation neglects the option that he’s both an idiot and a troll. Good catch.
I for one demand that mswas take the internet more seriously.
So if Der Trihs said a bunch of stupid stuff, then why not respond to him, either in GD or the Pit? You know that Der Trihs regularly says stupid stuff, right? It’s not a surprise anymore, is it?
Isn’t this admitting that you opened a parody thread in GD? So your GD thread wasn’t what you imagined a real atheist would say? And therefore, get this, trolling?
No it wasn’t a parody thread. It wasn’t a response to him, and it wasn’t about him. It was inspired by him. Do you grok the difference?
I thought it would be mswas who would try the “Devil’s Advocate” defence. I’m afraid that’s only believable if you state it upfront - and mswas has made it pretty clear that’s not the case.
Page and a half, and you think replying to an off-the-cuff quip is all that needs to be said? The long subsequent reply gives even more of the lie to that. Miller’s point was - why not post that first, so you don’t look like a troll.
No, but when they do come back, they can reply to more than just the easy targets first.
Where have I said you’ve hurt my feelings?
Well, when you live in a another reality, things may look quite different.
I was not aware of the rule which states that one must declare ahead of time if one is planning on playing Devil’s Advocate. Would you be willing to forward me a list of these rules so I don’t run afoul of them? I’d hate to think I might lose your respect because I don’t debate properly.