Suit over national day or prayer dimissed...

There's easily 25 people (or more) that think the same of you, so you'll have forgive me if what you said carries no weight. And if you think that there isn't actually any argument, then you just need to gain some reading comprehension.

Funny that none of them are here to point out how obviously wrong I am. Wonder why? There is a circular "argument" that you invented out of thin air with more holes than the condom the dog used on your mom the day you were conceived. If that is your only "argument" by all means go on considering yourself a super genius while the rest of us sit back and make hilarious quips at your expense.

[Avery'sDad]

Pretty much sums up this tread.

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2N121218JHy191215Q9eQ.jpg

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/images/atheist-cartoon.gif

[YALE]

Yes I do, which brings me to this: So so you admit that all "atheists" are not the same. Now, if they are not all in fact the same, then a good portion of them are not truly "atheists" at all. See my previous definition of "atheism" in one of my above posts. I just simply googled and capied/pasted that definition from some random dictionary website. So if that is in fact the definition of an atheist, then according to what I have read here, there aren't actually any atheists on this site. Key word in the definition being "belief". According to that definition, (which I'm sure you'll find the same definition anywhere else) none of you are atheists. I'm sorry but you can't sit there and say

"I am an atheist. And as such, I do not believe there is a god. ... But... sigh... I'm open to the possibility one day, if there's proof."

That's bullshit. You're not a fucking atheist, you're agnostic, or some variant thereof. Its not agnostic, though its similar. Maybe someone can help me out with the exact word.

I deleted my first post after I saw you actually responded, and I'm forced to point out again: the plaintiff's argument has nothing to do with atheism. Do you see why using the logic they present against atheists in general is indefensible yet? The discussions don't depend on each other, making an assault on atheism born out of your opinion of the plaintiff's opinion a simple ad hominem fallacy. It don't hold water. I don't have to address the beliefs of atheists as a whole, or my own, for your position to be invalid. Your invalidity is independent of those two things. I can try and repeat myself in a different way, if you like.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Talisman wasn't banned for being a "fucking moron"

Neither was I, so what's your point? You don't have one, cause never got to read the reason that was given to me for the ban. Or have you somehow obtained my password and logged in to my account? Yay, more of your assertions.

And, you can't go changing definitions of words to suit your desires. Merriam Webster will beat you about the head and neck with an unabridged version of itself.

Here is Merriam Webster's version:

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So, explain to me where it says belief.

You didn't read your own definition?

[Denny]

Your knowledge of the Big Bang theory is childish at best.

LOL... right. School me, oh wise one. Before you do, think about what I posted before you look foolish.

[racrguy]

There's easily 25 people (or more) that think the same of you, so you'll have forgive me if what you said carries no weight. And if you think that there isn't actually any argument, then you just need to gain some reading comprehension.



Yes I do, which brings me to this: So so you admit that all "atheists" are not the same. Now, if they are not all in fact the same, then a good portion of them are not truly "atheists" at all. See my previous definition of "atheism" in one of my above posts. I just simply googled and capied/pasted that definition from some random dictionary website. So if that is in fact the definition of an atheist, then according to what I have read here, there aren't actually any atheists on this site. Key word in the definition being "belief". According to that definition, (which I'm sure you'll find the same definition anywhere else) none of you are atheists.

Talisman wasn't banned for being a "fucking moron"

And, you can't go changing definitions of words to suit your desires. Merriam Webster will beat you about the head and neck with an unabridged version of itself.

Here is Merriam Webster's version:

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So, explain to me where it says belief.

[racrguy]

Everything came from nothing... GREAT logic, there!

Your knowledge of the Big Bang theory is childish at best.

Except... no you didn't. You never even addressed the biggest one, the universal negative. It must be nice to be you and be omniscient. That would be pretty cool. I wish I knew everything about the universe. About what I couldn't see. I'd be an expert on all manner of shit.

I've never heard any atheist that had a brain make the claim that 1) they knew everything or 2) that science, in it's current state, could explain everything.

And you'd probably know more if you pulled your head out of your ass and did some research outside your book of fairy tales.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

The only arguement contained in this entire thread is 25 people telling you you're a fucking moron and you disagreeing.

There's easily 25 people (or more) that think the same of you, so you'll have forgive me if what you said carries no weight. And if you think that there isn't actually any argument, then you just need to gain some reading comprehension.

No, you addressed a hole in the plaintiff's logic as though it applied to all atheists. They're not the same thing, and we're not all the same people. We agree on the logical hole in the suit. Do you see why you can't use that as a straw man to attack atheism's logical underpinnings?

*EDITED for clarity.

Yes I do, which brings me to this: So so you admit that all "atheists" are not the same. Now, if they are not all in fact the same, then a good portion of them are not truly "atheists" at all. See my previous definition of "atheism" in one of my above posts. I just simply googled and capied/pasted that definition from some random dictionary website. So if that is in fact the definition of an atheist, then according to what I have read here, there aren't actually any atheists on this site. Key word in the definition being "belief". According to that definition, (which I'm sure you'll find the same definition anywhere else) none of you are atheists. I'm sorry but you can't sit there and say

"I am an atheist. And as such, I do not believe there is a god. ... But... sigh... I'm open to the possibility one day, if there's proof."

That's bullshit. You're not a fucking atheist, you're agnostic, or some variant thereof. Its not agnostic, though its similar. Maybe someone can help me out with the exact word.

[YALE]

And I agree. I simply addressed a hole in the athesists logic, just as they have addressed holes in the logic of the religious.

No, you addressed a hole in the plaintiff's logic as though it applied to all atheists. They're not the same thing, and we're not all the same people. We agree on the logical hole in the suit. Do you see why you can't use that as a straw man to attack atheism's logical underpinnings?

*EDITED for clarity.

And I agree. I simply addressed a hole in the athesists logic, just as they have addressed holes in the logic of the religious.

The only arguement contained in this entire thread is 25 people telling you you're a fucking moron and you disagreeing.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

If we're going to address the logic of the discussion, the burden of proof is on theists claiming that there is a god, not athiests claiming disbelief.

And I agree. I simply addressed a hole in the athesists logic, just as they have addressed holes in the logic of the religious.

[Denny]

Everything came from nothing... GREAT logic, there!

[YALE]

Except... no you didn't. You never even addressed the biggest one, the universal negative. It must be nice to be you and be omniscient. That would be pretty cool. I wish I knew everything about the universe. About what I couldn't see. I'd be an expert on all manner of shit.

If we're going to address the logic of the discussion, the burden of proof is on theists claiming that there is a god, not athiests claiming disbelief.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

When you post something worthy of a rebuttal, you'll get one. All of the points you've given have been proven demonstrably wrong, so there's no use in going over it again.

Except... no you didn't. You never even addressed the biggest one, the universal negative. It must be nice to be you and be omniscient. That would be pretty cool. I wish I knew everything about the universe. About what I couldn't see. I'd be an expert on all manner of shit.

[breedlove]

Christians have been convincing themselves what they believe is true for a couple thousand years now. Why can't atheists do the same? All one in the same. No one knows who is right or wrong, that's the beauty of the argument.