Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if this thread holds the record for most posts after a drive-by OP?
At a mere three pages? Highly unlikely.
monavis, if the passage that you’re talking about is the one that Andy L quoted above, it assumes that the Earth is round. What it’s wondering about is whether there is any place directly opposite where people are known to live where people also live, which would mean that it’s possible for two people directly opposite each other on the Earth to be walking around on land. Now, it the time of Augustine, the only lands that people were known to live on were the Old World (Europe, Asia, Africa, and nearby islands). The Old World is surrounded by water. There was no reason to believe that there was any other dry land on Earth, since this was before the New World (the Americas) and Antarctica were known to exist, so that it was assumed that there was a world ocean surrounding all the dry land. So there was no case of two people being exactly opposite each other walking around on land. That’s how I interpret the passage.
Is that the passage you’re talking about? You don’t get to assert that a passage exists and then declare that since you asserted its existence someone else has to disprove its existence or else you’re correct. The proof of its existence or nonexistence is on the person making the assertion.
I think some of the 9/11 CT/Truther threads posting a video that we all MUST SEE(tm…arr) would hold that distinction, since usually those OPs get slapped down so hard that they slink off to whatever rock they crawled out from under.
No, they go off convinced that we’re either part of the ever growing conspiracy or we’re just mindless sheep, following the bleating of those in power.
The ones I’ve seen, anyway, tend to bring one truther after another out of the woodwork, and they take it in turns to argue and argue and argue their continually-debunked nonsense for hundreds of posts. I don’t recall any that involved one “Hey, 9/11 was an inside job!” OP followed by nothing but rebuttals. I could certainly be wrong, though.
No, you’ve pretty much got it right. After a while a mod has to step in and tell the troofer to quit posting pages of links and start responding to the posters directly.
Make up your mind.
You are second to none when it comes to conceit.
Bad move, you just complimented silenus.
I think that falls in the category of “Damn with faint praise.”
Is a sense of humor before or after blood transfusions on the list of things that JWs are not allowed to have?
It’s a shame the OP is what it is, because the thread title is quite engaging, I think. Is this site overwhelmingly atheist? What’s the threshold for overwhelming atheism? Can a case be made that overwhelming atheism at this site is in some way problematic? If it’s not actually overwhelmingly atheist, why does it appear to be to at least one contributor to this forum? Does the appearance of overwhelming atheism discourage would-be participants from joining the discussion?
Luckily, some of these issues have been explored as the thread developed. Probably not at all what the thread-starter had in mind, though. 
Wandering into a thread in Great Debates to snipe at other posters with one-line potshots does nothing to move a discussion forward and is inappropriate.
Stop it.
[ /Moderating ]
Very well…I can attest personally, that in all the time I have posted in Great Debates the deck is unmistakably stacked against religion and in favor of atheism.
I have seen it in at least one outside source as well: In the Time - Life Science Series, Karl Marx is included, apparently in behavioral sciences or humanities (dialectical materialism).
But I found also an interesting contemporary source: writer Jim Bishop, in a short article he wrote titled: “There Is No God?”
Which volume of the science series? It is not like any writeup of any kind of science only includes things that turn out to be correct.
Your point about the Jim Bishop piece? I found a column of his about the column, where he noted that lots of people angrily wrote to him about him claiming there was no god while he was trying to show that there was. From what I saw it was the same old the universe is so wonderful gunk. So I don’t get your point.
Care to give some good reasons for a god? And for creationism while you’re at it. The nice JW lady who came to my door certainly didn’t have any.
It was * The Scientist * (subheading: Sociology), pp. 98, 99.
:Sigh: I’ve heard the “gunk” shtick before (as well as less printable expressions, of course). You could have ignored this part if you didn’t like it.
About the nice Witness lady: and just what kind of ** abuse, ** if any, did you subject her to?
He asked her for arguments for creation. What an abuse!
That’s because reality is “stacked against religion and in favor of atheism”. Religion is inherently at a disadvantage in any forum where critics of it aren’t forbidden to speak by the mods or immediately shouted down.
I’m sure they covered other incorrect stuff like social Darwinism. Do you object to such a series even acknowledging the existence of Marx?
I was wondering why you brought this thing up. It is old and not exactly original. And it is gunk since it can and has been refuted five ways from Sunday. I know about all the constants and stuff, but it is an odd universe that is supposedly designed for us with so much empty space and only a tiny fraction of non-empty space where we can live. The pre-Copernicus design was a lot more reasonable for a deity to do.
No abuse at all. She had a little kid with her for protection for one thing. I just asked her to defend one small part of her faith. Surely that’s not abuse? I smiled all the time.
The only religious visitor I abused were a pair of Baptists. I decided not to bring up atheism with them and just politely told them that I wasn’t interested since I was Jewish. They then told me pretty much that I would rot in hell and I let them have it.
Never get Mormons. The previous owners of my house were Mormons, and we probably still have the lambs blood on the doorpost or something, so they pass over us.