FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
NYC driver

NYC driver

(2:27)

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rossglory (13 days ago)

lucky she didn't have a gun

Original comment

lucky she didn't have a gun

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

Lucky she didn't have an aneurysm.

Original comment

Lucky she didn't have an aneurysm.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Obama (11 days ago)

Lucky she's not having her period.

Original comment

Lucky she's not having her period.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AngryWithGod (9 days ago)

She's angry with God for creating traffic jams.

Original comment

She's angry with God for creating traffic jams.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Maybe she's another angry atheist off to shoot up a church and she's running late

Original comment

Maybe she's another angry atheist off to shoot up a church and she's running late

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (8 days ago)

Unlikely. Angry atheists are not known for shooting up churches. That’s the preserve of angry religious folk.

Original comment

Unlikely. Angry atheists are not known for shooting up churches. That’s the preserve of angry religious folk.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (8 days ago)

Wow read the news, look up Sutherland springs and catch up on what 1 of your peaceful flock got up to LESS THAN A WEEK AGO!!!... only the WORST mass shooting in Texas history and one of worst in US history. Nice peaceful rational atheist huh.. so come out with your excuse like all defensive zealots.. don't blame the beliefs blame the perpetrator right?..doesn't represent all X right? we heard it before pal.

Original comment

Wow read the news, look up Sutherland springs and catch up on what 1 of your peaceful flock got up to LESS THAN A WEEK AGO!!!... only the WORST mass shooting in Texas history and one of worst in US history. Nice peaceful rational atheist huh.. so come out with your excuse like all defensive zealots.. don't blame the beliefs blame the perpetrator right?..doesn't represent all X right? we heard it before pal.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (8 days ago)

If you hear of a shooting in a church and know nothing else, statistically it is more likely that a religious nut inspired by religion is the perpetrator than an atheist nut inspired by atheism. DPK was an atheist nut, but there is no evidence that atheism inspired him to kill. Looks like it was a domestic.

Original comment

If you hear of a shooting in a church and know nothing else, statistically it is more likely that a religious nut inspired by religion is the perpetrator than an atheist nut inspired by atheism. DPK was an atheist nut, but there is no evidence that atheism inspired him to kill. Looks like it was a domestic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (7 days ago)

LOL what a surprise just the usual excuses. Sorry but he was a proud atheist who preached atheism and went to a different religion to kills its followers. Could have gone to a family home, to a mall, but no went to a church. These days its more likely an atheist will go out and kill than any other religon, sad but true.

Original comment

LOL what a surprise just the usual excuses. Sorry but he was a proud atheist who preached atheism and went to a different religion to kills its followers. Could have gone to a family home, to a mall, but no went to a church. These days its more likely an atheist will go out and kill than any other religon, sad but true.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (7 days ago)

You are jumping to conclusions far too early. But let's assume DPK did choose a church because he specifically wanted to rid the planet of religious people. An attack like this by an atheist is statistically less likely than one by a religious person, ie. in history, there are more attacks in the name of religion than there are in the name of atheism. That's not excuses, that's just how it is.

As Richard Feynman once said (I'm quoting only slightly out of context), "if you don't like it, go find another universe".

Original comment

You are jumping to conclusions far too early. But let's assume DPK did choose a church because he specifically wanted to rid the planet of religious people. An attack like this by an atheist is statistically less likely than one by a religious person, ie. in history, there are more attacks in the name of religion than there are in the name of atheism. That's not excuses, that's just how it is.

As Richard Feynman once said (I'm quoting only slightly out of context), "if you don't like it, go find another universe".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (7 days ago)

Lets see, he rants about atheism then goes to shoot up a church instead of a mall or his wifes place... But oh no nothing to do with atheism .. but shiiit if you have an arab name then your an islamic terrorist for even owning a gun. Go figure. Drop the excuses and the yeabutt what-about-them bull crap, call it what it is and give up the excuses

Original comment

Lets see, he rants about atheism then goes to shoot up a church instead of a mall or his wifes place... But oh no nothing to do with atheism .. but shiiit if you have an arab name then your an islamic terrorist for even owning a gun. Go figure. Drop the excuses and the yeabutt what-about-them bull crap, call it what it is and give up the excuses

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (7 days ago)

Do you agree that there are more attacks in the name of religion than there are in the name of atheism? If you do, then I rest my case.

If you don't agree, but you still want to be right - go find another universe, one where reality matches what you believe.

Original comment

Do you agree that there are more attacks in the name of religion than there are in the name of atheism? If you do, then I rest my case.

If you don't agree, but you still want to be right - go find another universe, one where reality matches what you believe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (7 days ago)

LOL you have changed your point totally.. it was about statistics about shootings in churches remember?? If you still want to be right then go find a universe where atheists don't shoot up churches.

Original comment

LOL you have changed your point totally.. it was about statistics about shootings in churches remember?? If you still want to be right then go find a universe where atheists don't shoot up churches.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (7 days ago)

I expanded my point, but if you want to stick solely to church attacks, let me rephrase: Do you agree that there are more attacks in churches in the name of religion than there are attacks in churches in the name of atheism?

Original comment

I expanded my point, but if you want to stick solely to church attacks, let me rephrase: Do you agree that there are more attacks in churches in the name of religion than there are attacks in churches in the name of atheism?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (6 days ago)

You didn't expand.. you retreated, classic motte and bailley argument . You were talking about statistcs about church shootings. Sad to say that these days that sort of thing is usually atheists specially in West (where the vid is based).. hence my flippant remark that soared over your zealous head. But-whaddabout-them huh?

Original comment

You didn't expand.. you retreated, classic motte and bailley argument . You were talking about statistcs about church shootings. Sad to say that these days that sort of thing is usually atheists specially in West (where the vid is based).. hence my flippant remark that soared over your zealous head. But-whaddabout-them huh?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Unlike Walter, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia logical fallacy labels, but I have to say MAB arguments would fit the bill incredibly well. I think Maajid Nawaz has another label that would apply to this case that has been hinted at. WE is his own worst enemy sometimes.

Original comment

Unlike Walter, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia logical fallacy labels, but I have to say MAB arguments would fit the bill incredibly well. I think Maajid Nawaz has another label that would apply to this case that has been hinted at. WE is his own worst enemy sometimes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (6 days ago)

You didn't answer my question. Do you agree or not?

Original comment

You didn't answer my question. Do you agree or not?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Its irrellevant .. Your point was that its statistically its more likely for an atheist or a follower to be involved in shooting, in a church. I disagree as i made very clear.. specially in the USA where the video is based .

Original comment

Its irrellevant .. Your point was that its statistically its more likely for an atheist or a follower to be involved in shooting, in a church. I disagree as i made very clear.. specially in the USA where the video is based .

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

ps Still waiting for those statistics.. til then have a go at my grammar if it makes yu feele betta fo been calld owt .

Original comment

ps Still waiting for those statistics.. til then have a go at my grammar if it makes yu feele betta fo been calld owt .

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3 days ago)

Finding stats was more difficult than I anticipated. There are plenty of lists of attacks, but they mostly lack detail. And to be honest, I can't be bothered to trawl through each attack looking for one that specifically matches your requirements - a religiously motivated gun shooting in the US.

But I did eventually find something useful (tip: try DuckDuckGo if you are having no joy with Google). It turns out that about 6% of shootings in US churches are religiously motivated. LINK

In contrast with atheist attacks, officially Sutherland Springs is a domestic, and I was mistaken about the other example I gave in 2015. That atheist attack (Chapel Hill) was also a domestic, something to do with a parking dispute between a crazy atheist and his 3 Muslim neighbours.

So can we agree that in this universe at least, religiously motivated attacks are more likely than atheist motivated attacks, even when you narrow down the field to shootings in US churches? Are you really surprised?

Original comment

Finding stats was more difficult than I anticipated. There are plenty of lists of attacks, but they mostly lack detail. And to be honest, I can't be bothered to trawl through each attack looking for one that specifically matches your requirements - a religiously motivated gun shooting in the US.

But I did eventually find something useful (tip: try DuckDuckGo if you are having no joy with Google). It turns out that about 6% of shootings in US churches are religiously motivated. LINK

In contrast with atheist attacks, officially Sutherland Springs is a domestic, and I was mistaken about the other example I gave in 2015. That atheist attack (Chapel Hill) was also a domestic, something to do with a parking dispute between a crazy atheist and his 3 Muslim neighbours.

So can we agree that in this universe at least, religiously motivated attacks are more likely than atheist motivated attacks, even when you narrow down the field to shootings in US churches? Are you really surprised?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2 days ago)

LMAO finding stats is difficult? Then why say statistically?.. can't be bothered is about right. Most people look it up BEFORE saying something instead of saying can't be bothered AFTER. Shows me the stats on motives or admit your guessing.. again. Here's a real stat for you.. feel free to check.. if you're 1 of the top 10 worst mass shooters in the USA (where most mass shootings take place) you are probably not religious.. even though 4 out 5 people in USA ARE religious. Kinda weird huh, . Specially when its religion that motivates so much violence.. Lets just agree if they are muslim it's religion to blame.. and if its atheist white guys its mental or domestic issues.. or can we agree that atheists are more likely to kill in mass shootings in the USA? Is that suprising?.. Or US atheists are more likely to settle domestic issues by shooting people? Hows about insane atheists more likely to kill than insane religious people? IDK dude.. how you want to phrase it so it doesnt hurt your feelings? Ask your groupthink atheist support group for suggestions

Original comment

LMAO finding stats is difficult? Then why say statistically?.. can't be bothered is about right. Most people look it up BEFORE saying something instead of saying can't be bothered AFTER. Shows me the stats on motives or admit your guessing.. again. Here's a real stat for you.. feel free to check.. if you're 1 of the top 10 worst mass shooters in the USA (where most mass shootings take place) you are probably not religious.. even though 4 out 5 people in USA ARE religious. Kinda weird huh, . Specially when its religion that motivates so much violence.. Lets just agree if they are muslim it's religion to blame.. and if its atheist white guys its mental or domestic issues.. or can we agree that atheists are more likely to kill in mass shootings in the USA? Is that suprising?.. Or US atheists are more likely to settle domestic issues by shooting people? Hows about insane atheists more likely to kill than insane religious people? IDK dude.. how you want to phrase it so it doesnt hurt your feelings? Ask your groupthink atheist support group for suggestions

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1 day ago)
Latest comment:

Ouch!

Original comment
Latest comment:

Ouch!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (6 days ago)

I'm reluctant to invite a sermon (and I see as usual you have tried to tweak and dilute since this comment), but I just had to query:

"If you hear of a shooting in a church and know nothing else, statistically it is more likely that a religious nut inspired by religion is the perpetrator than an atheist nut inspired by atheism."

Could you give your sources on that? Which shootings in churches are you referring to?

Original comment

I'm reluctant to invite a sermon (and I see as usual you have tried to tweak and dilute since this comment), but I just had to query:

"If you hear of a shooting in a church and know nothing else, statistically it is more likely that a religious nut inspired by religion is the perpetrator than an atheist nut inspired by atheism."

Could you give your sources on that? Which shootings in churches are you referring to?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (6 days ago)

Islamist attacks on churches: LINK

Hindu attacks on Christians: LINK

Mosque attacks in US in 2017: LINK

There's plenty more. It wasn't so easy to find atheist attacks on churches. There was one in 2015: LINK I'm sure there are more.

Original comment

Islamist attacks on churches: LINK

Hindu attacks on Christians: LINK

Mosque attacks in US in 2017: LINK

There's plenty more. It wasn't so easy to find atheist attacks on churches. There was one in 2015: LINK I'm sure there are more.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

In response to an accusation about a New York driver, you said that statistically , such a ' shooting in a church ' was more likely to be perpetrated by a religious nut than an atheist nut. So I asked for your statistics about shootings in churches. I thought you may actually have some.

Wiki link 1) International attacks from Islamic terrorists, mostly bombings. At least some were in churches, but no statistics about shootings, and none of them occured in the USA, let alone NYC where the vid is based, and only 4 of them occurred in Western society.

Wiki link 2) Attacks in India, most of which were neither shootings nor in churches. No stats.

Link 3) A list of attacks on Mosques, not shootings, not churches, and no details on the perpetrators at all. Seriously, did you copy-paste the wrong link?

To you, these pages back up your specific claim about statistics on church shootings? Or are you retreating from that statement in favour of a much easier 'But religions attack religions too' argument?

Another insight into how you use data, particularly retrospectively, to try to rationalise a position you already had.

Original comment

In response to an accusation about a New York driver, you said that statistically , such a ' shooting in a church ' was more likely to be perpetrated by a religious nut than an atheist nut. So I asked for your statistics about shootings in churches. I thought you may actually have some.

Wiki link 1) International attacks from Islamic terrorists, mostly bombings. At least some were in churches, but no statistics about shootings, and none of them occured in the USA, let alone NYC where the vid is based, and only 4 of them occurred in Western society.

Wiki link 2) Attacks in India, most of which were neither shootings nor in churches. No stats.

Link 3) A list of attacks on Mosques, not shootings, not churches, and no details on the perpetrators at all. Seriously, did you copy-paste the wrong link?

To you, these pages back up your specific claim about statistics on church shootings? Or are you retreating from that statement in favour of a much easier 'But religions attack religions too' argument?

Another insight into how you use data, particularly retrospectively, to try to rationalise a position you already had.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (5 days ago)

You're doing it again! You broke 2 cardinal rules of text analysis.

1. Don't miss bits out on purpose when they don't fit what you want - I said "... and nothing else is known, ..." which obviously includes location. Otherwise, why would I add that phrase.

2. Understand the spirit of the thread before you stick your butt in. Your Thinkalike began with "Maybe she's another angry atheist off to shoot up a church...". That's why I continued with "shootings in churches". It would have been odd to suddenly switch to bombings or machete attacks when Thinkalike specifically imagined a shooting.

I did try to broaden my point by using "attacks" instead of "shootings", but Thinkalike got into a huff. You both seem to think that broadening out is equivalent to retreating to an easier position to defend. That's such a weird way to think, and it's misguided. Broadening out gives meaning and perspective. Whatever the stats for church shootings in NYC are, they tell you very little about what is a global phenomenon.

If you want a meaningful dialogue about angry atheists vs angry religious folk, then you have to broaden the scope. We've been through this before. Delving into detail often leads to mistaken conclusions when you ignore the bigger picture that your details sit in.

You should get together with Thinkalike. You can teach him some grammar, and he can stroke you where it feels nice. Hey guys, send me a postcard from your new universe.

Original comment

You're doing it again! You broke 2 cardinal rules of text analysis.

1. Don't miss bits out on purpose when they don't fit what you want - I said "... and nothing else is known, ..." which obviously includes location. Otherwise, why would I add that phrase.

2. Understand the spirit of the thread before you stick your butt in. Your Thinkalike began with "Maybe she's another angry atheist off to shoot up a church...". That's why I continued with "shootings in churches". It would have been odd to suddenly switch to bombings or machete attacks when Thinkalike specifically imagined a shooting.

I did try to broaden my point by using "attacks" instead of "shootings", but Thinkalike got into a huff. You both seem to think that broadening out is equivalent to retreating to an easier position to defend. That's such a weird way to think, and it's misguided. Broadening out gives meaning and perspective. Whatever the stats for church shootings in NYC are, they tell you very little about what is a global phenomenon.

If you want a meaningful dialogue about angry atheists vs angry religious folk, then you have to broaden the scope. We've been through this before. Delving into detail often leads to mistaken conclusions when you ignore the bigger picture that your details sit in.

You should get together with Thinkalike. You can teach him some grammar, and he can stroke you where it feels nice. Hey guys, send me a postcard from your new universe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

More infantile point-scoring. Well done, lad. Almost distracted me.

1) 'If nothing else is known' adds nothing; your sources were not the statistics you cited. Yes, changing focus from US atheists to religious followers elsewhere in the world is an amusing token of 'whataboutery', but actually my point was simply that your statistics don't back up your claim, even when you redirect the thread to bang that drum of yours.

2) The 'spirit of the thread'? Jesus wept! It's so hard to take you seriously these days. The original comment wasn't about 'global phenomena', wasn't about international trends of all religious or anti-religious violence. It was just a facetious remark about why a USA driver might have been annoyed. Remind yourself of what kind of a belief set can't even laugh at itself and get another clue why you get the badge for being the most religious little apostle on BoreMe. Get over yourself.

It's far simpler than you're making out. You felt your belief set was challenged by a joke, so you got defensive and impulsively claimed there were statistics about church shootings that backed you up. Those statistics either exist, or they don't. 'Period'.

Well, two people called your bluff, and lo and behold you can't give the statistics. Woopsy. Yes you can try to "broaden your point" or run away to an easier position which wasn't being talked about - motte and bailey reasoning, as Guest observed - but that doesn't change the veracity of the claim we're talking about.

And yes, we really have been through this before - you claim the support of data when you proselytise on what you already believe, but when pressed, that data suddenly goes missing, or is flawed, or is too esoteric to be read, and then you have to tweak and dilute, tweak and dilute. And the more you do it, the more irate you get, so out come the labels, out comes some reference to 'text analysis' and doubtless another to 'political correctness' in due course. Do you have a script?

Talking of 'Thinkalikes', that's quite an amusing term when this whole thread has sprung from your inability to tolerate a perceived insult against your community. Personally, I have no idea whether Guest is religious or agnostic or anything else, but when 'thinking alike' means nothing more than asking for sources for off-the-cuff claims, then I suspect we aren't the only ones to think it's worth doing. Try it.

If you ever find a universe in which atheists aren't militant, then I'd advise you to stay out of it, because you'd instantly become the first and would ruin the place with that fervent streak of yours.

Original comment

More infantile point-scoring. Well done, lad. Almost distracted me.

1) 'If nothing else is known' adds nothing; your sources were not the statistics you cited. Yes, changing focus from US atheists to religious followers elsewhere in the world is an amusing token of 'whataboutery', but actually my point was simply that your statistics don't back up your claim, even when you redirect the thread to bang that drum of yours.

2) The 'spirit of the thread'? Jesus wept! It's so hard to take you seriously these days. The original comment wasn't about 'global phenomena', wasn't about international trends of all religious or anti-religious violence. It was just a facetious remark about why a USA driver might have been annoyed. Remind yourself of what kind of a belief set can't even laugh at itself and get another clue why you get the badge for being the most religious little apostle on BoreMe. Get over yourself.

It's far simpler than you're making out. You felt your belief set was challenged by a joke, so you got defensive and impulsively claimed there were statistics about church shootings that backed you up. Those statistics either exist, or they don't. 'Period'.

Well, two people called your bluff, and lo and behold you can't give the statistics. Woopsy. Yes you can try to "broaden your point" or run away to an easier position which wasn't being talked about - motte and bailey reasoning, as Guest observed - but that doesn't change the veracity of the claim we're talking about.

And yes, we really have been through this before - you claim the support of data when you proselytise on what you already believe, but when pressed, that data suddenly goes missing, or is flawed, or is too esoteric to be read, and then you have to tweak and dilute, tweak and dilute. And the more you do it, the more irate you get, so out come the labels, out comes some reference to 'text analysis' and doubtless another to 'political correctness' in due course. Do you have a script?

Talking of 'Thinkalikes', that's quite an amusing term when this whole thread has sprung from your inability to tolerate a perceived insult against your community. Personally, I have no idea whether Guest is religious or agnostic or anything else, but when 'thinking alike' means nothing more than asking for sources for off-the-cuff claims, then I suspect we aren't the only ones to think it's worth doing. Try it.

If you ever find a universe in which atheists aren't militant, then I'd advise you to stay out of it, because you'd instantly become the first and would ruin the place with that fervent streak of yours.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3 days ago)

How is expanding a topic so that it is more meaningful, become whataboutery, M&B or point scoring? Motte & Baiiey is a strategy (yes, I did have to look it up). Maybe that's how you and Thinkalike operate so you can't imagine anyone operating differently. Just a thought.

I love your simple explanation. "You felt your belief set was challenged by a joke..." How old do you think I am? 6?

Let's talk about the "spirit of the thread". Thinkalike made a witty comment, and I replied in kind. I was quite proud of my reply, it almost had a soundbite quality to it. Then Thinkalike expanded the conversation with: "Wow read the news, look up Sutherland springs..." And I was happy to oblige. Sure, I "impulsively" claimed that religiously motivated attacks are more common than atheist motivated attacks. That's because I was confident stats would show that. After all, every Islamist attack is a religiously motivated attack, and there are plenty of them. But then you both played your pedantic cards. I didn't see that coming. Thinkalike insisted stats be specifically of shootings in US churches. You went further and insisted the churches had to be in NYC, even though Thinkalike had already expanded to Texas. And you say I'm point scoring?

Anyway, how are you getting on with Thinkalike? My heartfelt advice - don't tell him your ideas about god, at least not on the first date.

Original comment

How is expanding a topic so that it is more meaningful, become whataboutery, M&B or point scoring? Motte & Baiiey is a strategy (yes, I did have to look it up). Maybe that's how you and Thinkalike operate so you can't imagine anyone operating differently. Just a thought.

I love your simple explanation. "You felt your belief set was challenged by a joke..." How old do you think I am? 6?

Let's talk about the "spirit of the thread". Thinkalike made a witty comment, and I replied in kind. I was quite proud of my reply, it almost had a soundbite quality to it. Then Thinkalike expanded the conversation with: "Wow read the news, look up Sutherland springs..." And I was happy to oblige. Sure, I "impulsively" claimed that religiously motivated attacks are more common than atheist motivated attacks. That's because I was confident stats would show that. After all, every Islamist attack is a religiously motivated attack, and there are plenty of them. But then you both played your pedantic cards. I didn't see that coming. Thinkalike insisted stats be specifically of shootings in US churches. You went further and insisted the churches had to be in NYC, even though Thinkalike had already expanded to Texas. And you say I'm point scoring?

Anyway, how are you getting on with Thinkalike? My heartfelt advice - don't tell him your ideas about god, at least not on the first date.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1 day ago)

Don't comment after a drink, WalterEgo. It doesn't help.

The point scoring was a reference to 'text analysis'; I alluded to it once, and since then you've regularly used it as a simplistic insult instead of addressing my points. Silly, and more than a touch juvenile, along with the amusingly ironic 'Thinkalike' jibes etc. and the other tired memes you trot out. How old do I think you are? Honestly - undergraduate? You're religiously defensive about your beliefs, and show a marked naivety and inconsistency about the academic topics you choose to talk about. Maybe I've just not hit upon your area of expertise yet. Enlighten me.

'Motte and Bailey' could be my style of reasoning... but then again, you've not suggested where I've done that, and I can't see it. However, since learning the term, I've thought of a few great examples for you to consider:

- 'Gods are manmade' - well, that's an interesting and controversial belief - 'But atheism is just a lack of belief, we have no burden of proof'. Oh.

- 'There is no scientific evidence in favour of ESP' - well, what about Bem - you've heard of Bem, the widest study of... 'I meant there's no *replicated* evidence'. But it was replic - 'I meant there's no replicated evidence that isn’t flawed to me'. Oh.

- 'All else being equal, statistics show that shootings in churches are more likely from religious people' - well that's interesting, what statistics are you using? 'Statistics are hard to come by, I actually meant that over-all and on an international scale religiously motivated attacks are more common. Don't be pedantic'. Oh.

Personally, I would call it tweak and dilute , but for you lot that like the whole Wiki-fallacy and labelling lark, motte and bailey seems to be amusingly close to the mark.

Remember, no one was talking about worldwide phenomena. It was a clip of an angry New Yorker; I didn't choose the subject, the location, or even the flippant remark that upset you. But you came out with a very specific and very defensive claim and you've been held to it. Sorry. If you had wanted to 'expand the topic to make it meaningful' (or rather crowbar in an atheist homily about international violence), why did you make such a specific claim about the statistics on church shootings? Oh OK, maybe it was just wit, right? You were just joking! I see. Or maybe you were describing a broader trait accurately, by guessing wrongly? Right. Any more excuses?

As usual, do your homework before assuming the real world matches you preconceptions, and please, for the love of Dawkins, stop taking your belief set so seriously.

Original comment

Don't comment after a drink, WalterEgo. It doesn't help.

The point scoring was a reference to 'text analysis'; I alluded to it once, and since then you've regularly used it as a simplistic insult instead of addressing my points. Silly, and more than a touch juvenile, along with the amusingly ironic 'Thinkalike' jibes etc. and the other tired memes you trot out. How old do I think you are? Honestly - undergraduate? You're religiously defensive about your beliefs, and show a marked naivety and inconsistency about the academic topics you choose to talk about. Maybe I've just not hit upon your area of expertise yet. Enlighten me.

'Motte and Bailey' could be my style of reasoning... but then again, you've not suggested where I've done that, and I can't see it. However, since learning the term, I've thought of a few great examples for you to consider:

- 'Gods are manmade' - well, that's an interesting and controversial belief - 'But atheism is just a lack of belief, we have no burden of proof'. Oh.

- 'There is no scientific evidence in favour of ESP' - well, what about Bem - you've heard of Bem, the widest study of... 'I meant there's no *replicated* evidence'. But it was replic - 'I meant there's no replicated evidence that isn’t flawed to me'. Oh.

- 'All else being equal, statistics show that shootings in churches are more likely from religious people' - well that's interesting, what statistics are you using? 'Statistics are hard to come by, I actually meant that over-all and on an international scale religiously motivated attacks are more common. Don't be pedantic'. Oh.

Personally, I would call it tweak and dilute , but for you lot that like the whole Wiki-fallacy and labelling lark, motte and bailey seems to be amusingly close to the mark.

Remember, no one was talking about worldwide phenomena. It was a clip of an angry New Yorker; I didn't choose the subject, the location, or even the flippant remark that upset you. But you came out with a very specific and very defensive claim and you've been held to it. Sorry. If you had wanted to 'expand the topic to make it meaningful' (or rather crowbar in an atheist homily about international violence), why did you make such a specific claim about the statistics on church shootings? Oh OK, maybe it was just wit, right? You were just joking! I see. Or maybe you were describing a broader trait accurately, by guessing wrongly? Right. Any more excuses?

As usual, do your homework before assuming the real world matches you preconceptions, and please, for the love of Dawkins, stop taking your belief set so seriously.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AlsoAngryWithGod (8 days ago)

I'm angry with God for creating her.

Original comment

I'm angry with God for creating her.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: MeTooAngryWithGod (8 days ago)

I'm angry with God for not existing to help this poor lady out.

Original comment

I'm angry with God for not existing to help this poor lady out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JesusYourFlavour (5 days ago)

You can be angry with God. It's part of the process.

Original comment

You can be angry with God. It's part of the process.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: JesusYourFlavour (11 days ago)

Commie Lesbian. Obvious.

Original comment

Commie Lesbian. Obvious.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
NYC driver
NYC driver
TYT - Trump playing
TYT - Trump playing "fuming media critic"
8-year-old reacts to his mother telling him she is an atheist
8-year-old reacts to his mother telling him she is an atheist
Ring of Fire - Trump can't stop yelling at the TV
Ring of Fire - Trump can't stop yelling at the TV
Palaeontologist debunks
Palaeontologist debunks "dinosaurs never existed" conspiracy