We evolved from a great ape, now what? [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : We evolved from a great ape, now what?

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 07:49 PM

dp

I neither acknowledged, nor dodged you.
And you keep asking me the same old tired question, but completely missing the point in the process.
Is that how you debate an issue?
Are you aware of Parliamentary Procedure concerning the proper method of debating an issue?
And if you are, then why aren't you practicing it?
Ironically you don't even have a clue as to what the issue is now, nor was when this started.
Because it has nothing to do with your question as it presently stands.
I asked you to go back and reread my posts especially the one that we were initially discussing, but you conveniently evade that.
So I truly think you are trying your baiting tactics that have failed fuuzzy.
It is a lost cause.
Give it up.
Or retreat to some humor.
:lol

Jake the Muss

11-13-2013, 07:50 PM

Much offense, bloke. Mate, you are not from down under, bloke. Wankers are bloke mates shrimp on the barbie. wallabies and joey crocodile hunters.

See. I'm from Australia!

Mate, are you really this unintelligent? Of course I am not from Australia, I am a lovable chap from New Zealand. Aussies are nothing but wankers.

Woo Bum-kon

11-13-2013, 07:53 PM

I neither acknowledged, nor dodged you.
And you keep asking me the same old tired question, but completely missing the point in the process.
Is that how you debate an issue?
Are you aware of Parliamentary Procedure concerning the proper method of debating an issue?
And if you are, then why aren't you practicing it?
Ironically you don't even have a clue as to what the issue is now, nor was when this started.
Because it has nothing to do with your question as it presently stands.
I asked you to go back and reread my posts especially the one that we were initially discussing, but you conveniently evade that.
So I truly think you are trying your baiting tactics that have failed fuuzzy.
It is a lost cause.
Give it up.
Or retreat to some humor.
:lol

Where's your evidence for God?

FuzzyLumpkins

11-13-2013, 07:53 PM

Mate, are you really this unintelligent? Of course I am not from Australia, I am a lovable chap from New Zealand. Aussies are nothing but wankers.

bloke mate wallaby roo i gots the shits!!!!

i be kiwi!!!!

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 08:00 PM

Where's your evidence for God?

If you want it sooooooo bad, go find it yourself.
It's not my responsibility to find it for you.
Do it yourself, it'll have more impact on you that way!
Besides, that isn't even the issue we were debating in the first place.
That's why you retreat to it, because you have forgotten it already IMHO.
It is deliberate obfuscation.
Have fun with it

FuzzyLumpkins

11-13-2013, 08:01 PM

If you want it sooooooo bad, go find it yourself.
It's not my responsibility to find it for you.
Do it yourself, it'll have more impact on you that way!
Besides, that isn't even the issue we were debating in the first place.
That's why you retreat to it, because you have forgotten it already IMHO.
It is deliberate obfuscation.
Have fun with it

Coward.

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 08:08 PM

Coward.

As per usual. More the same from you.
You really don't have a clue as to how to debate an issue, any more than you know how to have a competent, civil, constructive discussion of a topic.
But you sure know how to insult, don't you?
You've got that down pat.
Is it any wonder why no one will discuss anything with you?
You have no conception of proper debate etiquette or decorum.
Your buddy, woo, is much the same as you.
Maybe I will have to start giving classes.
It can't hurt.
And may be humorously beneficial.
:lol

Clipper Nation

11-13-2013, 08:29 PM

If you want it sooooooo bad, go find it yourself.
It's not my responsibility to find it for you.
It IS your responsibility to find it because you're the one claiming there is a god....

Woo Bum-kon

11-13-2013, 08:31 PM

If you want it sooooooo bad, go find it yourself.

I am trying to find out what YOUR evidence is for God, but you don't want to provide it.

Besides, that isn't even the issue we were debating in the first place.

The issue we were debating got tiresome. I want to get to the meat of the matter.

Define "God" and explain why you believe it exists.

silverblk mystix

11-13-2013, 08:34 PM

I am trying to find out what YOUR evidence is for God, but you don't want to provide it.

The issue we were debating got tiresome. I want to get to the meat of the matter.

Define "God" and explain why you believe it exists.

Moving the goal posts....per par...

then the great copout...."I don't have to prove anything...the burden of blah -blah...."

Clipper Nation

11-13-2013, 08:35 PM

You really don't have a clue as to how to debate an issue
This is coming from someone who repeatedly uses logical fallacies, refuses to back up their points, spends more time complaining about other posters' word choice and tone than actually addressing the issue, and when all else fails, spams a bunch of quotes from a website....

FuzzyLumpkins

11-13-2013, 08:40 PM

As per usual. More the same from you.
You really don't have a clue as to how to debate an issue, any more than you know how to have a competent, civil, constructive discussion of a topic.
But you sure know how to insult, don't you?
You've got that down pat.
Is it any wonder why no one will discuss anything with you?
You have no conception of proper debate etiquette or decorum.
Your buddy, woo, is much the same as you.
Maybe I will have to start giving classes.
It can't hurt.
And may be humorously beneficial.
:lol

So says the guy that claims that he doesn't want to be 'baited' whenever I refute something that you say. Yet when I insult you, you go right to the round and round. You are so unbelievably full of shit.

You claim that I have no idea how to argue yet when wbk asks for proof of your stance you take the coward route and tell him to figure it out for himself. As if he is supposed to make your argument for you.

DUNCANownsKOBE

11-13-2013, 08:45 PM

Woo Bum-kon

11-13-2013, 08:51 PM

Moving the goal posts....per par...

then the great copout...."I don't have to prove anything...the burden of blah -blah...."

Moron who still doesn't understand the meaning of the words/terms he uses.

Clipper Nation

11-13-2013, 08:52 PM

Has anyone seen the fake $10 Christians are now leaving on tables in place of an actual tip? It looks like a real $10 on the front but has this on the back:

http://thelibertyzone.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/enhanced-buzz-6880-1321801160-7.jpg

:lmao:lmao:lmao cheap selfish assholes

:lmao:lmao:lmao

They might as well hand the waiter/waitress a piece of paper that says "I'm a self-righteous douchebag who's too cheap to leave a tip" :lol

Blake

11-13-2013, 08:58 PM

Moving the goal posts....per par...

then the great copout...."I don't have to prove anything...the burden of blah -blah...."

you should stop using the smart words the big boys use until you know how to use them.

Blah blah blah is ok though.

DUNCANownsKOBE

11-13-2013, 08:58 PM

:lmao:lmao:lmao

They might as well hand the waiter/waitress a piece of paper that says "I'm a self-righteous douchebag who's too cheap to leave a tip" :lol

There's other recent instances that are even more self-righteous and hilarious :lol

A Christian in Missouri feels that tithing means you don't have to tip:
http://awaypoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/appebees-receipt-from-reddit.jpg

And also a Christian family in Kansas leaves this message in place of a tip for their gay waiter:

"Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. (Homosexual slur) do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours,” the customer wrote. “We hope you will see the tip your (homosexual slur) choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for GOD’s love, but none shall be spared for (homosexual slur). May GOD have mercy on you."
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/restaurant_patron_refuses_to_tip_server_because_of _waiters_sexual_orientation/

#ChristiansStiffingServers

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 09:00 PM

To fuuzzy, woo, and CN:
None of you have refuted anything of consequence. Because I never stated a position.
Are any of you aware of that?
Just because someone believes something does not automatically make it an issue to be proved or disproved.
I hope you are having fun with this.
I am amazed at your persistence, but as I said before, it is a fruitless endeavor on your part.
Do you enjoy attributing words and statements to me that have no basis in reality?
Or do you prefer instead to spout drivel and conjecture, in between the insults and baiting?
You are all three of you wasting your time.
Anyone know any good jokes?
That should be easier for you to do than your redundant spiels.
At least it would be somewhat entertaining for me.
But no, go ahead and repeat yourselves again unto oblivion.
I can sit here all day, and night, and into the next.
:lol

silverblk mystix

11-13-2013, 09:03 PM

Bang my wife anytime!

silverblk mystix

11-13-2013, 09:04 PM

Blake

11-13-2013, 09:08 PM

blah blah blah

Woo Bum-kon

11-13-2013, 09:12 PM

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 09:18 PM

Can someone tell these idiots that jr. college class is not in here?

They can't get past that jr. college edumacation! :lol

I've tried but it is like talking to a wall.of angry baying hounds.
If Blake chimes in too, then I'll have all four competing for crumbs.
Woo, fuuzzy, CN, and Blake.
They may actually think they are getting somewhere.
What they don't realize is that I am watching the Spurs in their camos, while occasionally catching a snatch of their posts.
They don't even realize what the topic is anymore, because they are so ravenously chomping at their bits to get in a word in edgewise.
And they are competing against each other for my attention. I am the referee here!
Go figure.
:lol

SA210

11-13-2013, 09:18 PM

Can someone tell these idiots that jr. college class is not in here?

They can't get past that jr. college edumacation! :lol

These trolls have been a special kind of angry as of late. I wonder why...

:lol

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 09:21 PM

These trolls have been a special kind of angry as of late. I wonder why...

:lol

All of a sudden they disappeared.
Aw, that's ok, I am still here, enjoying the Spurs.

silverblk mystix

11-13-2013, 09:25 PM

All of a sudden they disappeared.
Aw, that's ok, I am still here, enjoying the Spurs.

They want to hate on someone...anyone....the unhappiness is killing them.

I gave that big headed woo-bung hole kid a serious truth nugget - and his retort was;

this post has no substance...stupid...blah-blah...

I told him -

Enjoy every moment you are alive and enjoy every breath you take - and let the idiots worry about proving shit -

A humongous truth bomb when it comes to life and reality - but like the sage pointing a finger at the moon and all the idiot sees is the finger....

sad.

xmas1997

11-13-2013, 09:31 PM

They want to hate on someone...anyone....the unhappiness is killing them.

I gave that big headed woo-bung hole kid a serious truth nugget - and his retort was;

this post has no substance...stupid...blah-blah...

I told him -

Enjoy every moment you are alive and enjoy every breath you take - and let the idiots worry about proving shit -

A humongous truth bomb when it comes to life and reality - but like the sage pointing a finger at the moon and all the idiot sees is the finger....

sad.

His schtick is to attribute to me words or statements I never made.
I guess he figures that will make me change my mind.
I already refuted every one of his arguments, even the one concerning "burden of truth", but he is just too dense to realize it.
He is robotic in his responses.
How do you debate with robotic mentality?
:lol

silverblk mystix

11-13-2013, 09:33 PM

His schtick is to attribute to me words or statements I never made.
I guess he figures that will make me change my mind.
I already refuted every one of his arguments, even the one concerning "burden of truth", but he is just too dense to realize it.
:lol

Well, I pity him - it must have been hard being part of those special kids that went to school in those short yellow buses.

:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 04:44 AM

His schtick is to attribute to me words or statements I never made.

Lie.

I already refuted every one of his arguments, even the one concerning "burden of truth", but he is just too dense to realize it.

No, you did not.

How do you debate with robotic mentality?

I don't have a robotic mentality. You're just too much of a pussy to answer the question at the crux of the matter. You like to type overwrought posts where you whine about other posters. I'm not getting caught up in that.

You want an actual debate? Okay, let's start. Here's a claim: A god exists. Is that claim true or false? If true, define "god" and explain why you believe the claim to be true.

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 04:59 AM

A humongous truth bomb when it comes to life and reality - but like the sage pointing a finger at the moon and all the idiot sees is the finger....

Again, if your advice is so truthful and helpful, why don't YOU follow it? You're engaged in e-wars with half the posters here. Why don't you follow your own advice and go out and enjoy life instead of staying on SpursTalk calling people "faggot" and "cuck"?

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 10:13 AM

Again, if your advice is so truthful and helpful, why don't YOU follow it? You're engaged in e-wars with half the posters here. Why don't you follow your own advice and go out and enjoy life instead of staying on SpursTalk calling people "faggot" and "cuck"?

I will give you two truth bombs here - one to answer your idiotic post above regarding your "claim that you want someone else to make" and the second regarding your idiotic drivel above ^ regarding your false assessment of me.

#1) Make the claim yourself - stop trying to bait others to make a claim that you want them to make - and above all that - who gives a shit if there is a god or not - I gave you much better info about life and you zoomed right past it and went right back to your stupid preoccupation of arguing over words, concepts, ideologies, etc - which have absolutely nothing to do with any real "god." No one even knows what the word means and you want to argue about it. Lunacy.

#2) I am enjoying every single minute and laughing my ass off at people like you who have been coming here for years and cyber-bullying others and circle-jerking others - I am enjoying every breath- every moment - throwing shit right back in their face and watching their reactions as the shoe is now on the other foot and they now know exactly how others felt when they were doing the circle-jerking. I enjoy every single moment and every breath when I am away from here also - for absolutely no particular reason.
There are no ordinary moments and reality NEVER repeats. It is going on all around you - "god" is going on all around you - whatever that is - try learning that and you will burn all your "intellectual" books and try to wash all that garbage out of your memory that you got programmed with.

I now fully expect you to skim through this gold - and absolutely miss out on all the gold - and begin to spout nonsense - because you cannot help what and who you are and you have not had a moment of wakefulness in your life since you were an infant.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 10:20 AM

Lie.
No, you did not.
I don't have a robotic mentality. You're just too much of a pussy to answer the question at the crux of the matter. You like to type overwrought posts where you whine about other posters. I'm not getting caught up in that.
You want an actual debate? Okay, let's start. Here's a claim: A god exists. Is that claim true or false? If true, define "god" and explain why you believe the claim to be true.

No, there is no point in talking, discussing, or debating with a liar like you.
You even started this post with an out and out lie by claiming I lied.
It is laughable. :lol
Why would any sane rational person be foolish enough to want to engage in any sort of interaction with someone who acts like you do?
You've proven what your intentions are already. Or are you blind to that?
Allow me to enumerate for you.
You clearly try to incite pissing contests, you trash decent posters to get your own sick kicks, and you have no constructive takes about anything or anyone.
Why should anyone ever take you seriously enough to want to have a civil discussion or debate with you?
You would never be gracious enough to admit it if you were wrong. In fact, what I've read of your posts, all you do is spout obsequious drivel mingled among obscenities.
Your agenda is transparent, in case you weren't aware.
Your posts are here on record and all know you for what you are.
And now, I am on record calling you out for what you are.
See my first sentence/statement above in this post.
Deny it if you will but it will not change the truth.
If I were you, I would be thoroughly ashamed of who I was, of what I stand for, and of my childish motivations.
I am on to your games, so you should just go shrink back to your tiny little room and play some computer games until you are old enough to associate with some adults.
And don't make me come in there again! :lol

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 10:23 AM

No, there is no point in talking, discussing, or debating with a liar like you.
You even started this post with an out and out lie by claiming I lied.
It is laughable. :lol
Why would any sane rational person be foolish enough to want to engage in any sort of interaction with someone who acts like you do?
You've proven what your intentions are already. Or are you blind to that?
Allow me to enumerate for you.
You clearly try to incite pissing contests, you trash decent posters to get your own sick kicks, and you have no constructive takes about anything or anyone.
Why should anyone ever take you seriously enough to want to have a civil discussion or debate with you?
You would never be gracious enough to admit it if you were wrong. In fact, what I've read of your posts, all you do is spout obsequious drivel mingled among obscenities.
Your agenda is transparent, in case you weren't aware.
Your posts are here on record and all know you for what you are.
And now, I am on record calling you out for what you are.
See my first sentence/statement above in this post.
Deny it if you will but it will not change the truth.
If I were you, I would be thoroughly ashamed of who I was, of what I stand for, and of my childish motivations.
I am on to your games, so you should just go shrink back to your tiny little room and play some computer games until you are old enough to associate with some adults.
And don't make me come in there again! :lol

booooooom!!!!!!!

And right there folks - is why I enjoy throwing the shit right back in trolls faces because this post describes exactly what 99% of them have been doing for years.

Great truths.

:toast

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 10:28 AM

Xmas dodged my question once again. What a complete coward.

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 10:31 AM

^ missing truth bombs again ^ this explains his retarded state ^

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 10:35 AM

I will give you two truth bombs here - one to answer your idiotic post above regarding your "claim that you want someone else to make" and the second regarding your idiotic drivel above ^ regarding your false assessment of me.

#1) Make the claim yourself - stop trying to bait others to make a claim that you want them to make - and above all that - who gives a shit if there is a god or not - I gave you much better info about life and you zoomed right past it and went right back to your stupid preoccupation of arguing over words, concepts, ideologies, etc - which have absolutely nothing to do with any real "god." No one even knows what the word means and you want to argue about it. Lunacy.

#2) I am enjoying every single minute and laughing my ass off at people like you who have been coming here for years and cyber-bullying others and circle-jerking others - I am enjoying every breath- every moment - throwing shit right back in their face and watching their reactions as the shoe is now on the other foot and they now know exactly how others felt when they were doing the circle-jerking. I enjoy every single moment and every breath when I am away from here also - for absolutely no particular reason.
There are no ordinary moments and reality NEVER repeats. It is going on all around you - "god" is going on all around you - whatever that is - try learning that and you will burn all your "intellectual" books and try to wash all that garbage out of your memory that you got programmed with.

I now fully expect you to skim through this gold - and absolutely miss out on all the gold - and begin to spout nonsense - because you cannot help what and who you are and you have not had a moment of wakefulness in your life since you were an infant.

I was wrong. Woo does not have a robotic mentality.
What it is ironically enough is almost the same as fuuzzy is. In fact they could even be the same person with different identities.
Both are classic examples of "pseudo-intellectuals" in the extreme.
You get lots of those on sites like these simply because they can hide behind their computer screens and blast away at decent individuals with absolutely no accountability whatsoever. Oh wait, isn't that also what a troll does? :lol
No, his schtick is transparent now, just as fuuzzys is, and is not worth any more effort than it takes to take a quick piss.
:lol
That was rather harsh. But it is the truth. And sometimes the truth needs to be said, and his BS called out.
You did a perfect job of it yourself.
Maybe he will learn something if enough people do this to him........... Not. :lol

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 10:49 AM

I was wrong. Woo does not have a robotic mentality.
What it is ironically enough is almost the same as fuuzzy is. In fact they could even be the same person with different identities.
Both are classic examples of "pseudo-intellectuals" in the extreme.
You get lots of those on sites like these simply because they can hide behind their computer screens and blast away at decent individuals with absolutely no accountability whatsoever. Oh wait, isn't that also what a troll does? :lol
No, his schtick is transparent now, just as fuuzzys is, and is not worth any more effort than it takes to take a quick piss.
:lol
That was rather harsh. But it is the truth. And sometimes the truth needs to be said, and his BS called out.
You did a perfect job of it yourself.
Maybe he will learn something if enough people do this to him........... Not. :lol

Well there is one thing they are consistent at;

Missing truth when it slaps them in their troll face.

They will miss the truth you gave and the truth that I gave.

That - you can count on. :lol

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 11:09 AM

Well there is one thing they are consistent at;

Missing truth when it slaps them in their troll face.

They will miss the truth you gave and the truth that I gave.

That - you can count on. :lol

If by "missing" you meant "refuse to acknowledge" their own folly, the I agree.
Most don't like being honest with themselves, it is too revealing and painful.
It means they have to take responsibility for their own failings in life.
Most would rather blame it on others, or external events.
Where the real truth is they manufactured it all themselves and thus have only themselves to blame.
That is what I tried to illustrate when I made all those posts attacking and ridiculing myself.
But I think it went over the heads of most, besides being humorous.
It comes down to the fact that most of us just flatly take ourselves way too seriously for our own good.
Every time we do that, we get ourselves in trouble, far more often than when we are just joking around.
:lol

Blake

11-14-2013, 11:13 AM

Blake

11-14-2013, 11:14 AM

I was wrong. Woo does not have a robotic mentality.
What it is ironically enough is almost the same as fuuzzy is. In fact they could even be the same person with different identities.
Both are classic examples of "pseudo-intellectuals" in the extreme.
You get lots of those on sites like these simply because they can hide behind their computer screens and blast away at decent individuals with absolutely no accountability whatsoever. Oh wait, isn't that also what a troll does? :lol
No, his schtick is transparent now, just as fuuzzys is, and is not worth any more effort than it takes to take a quick piss.
:lol
That was rather harsh. But it is the truth. And sometimes the truth needs to be said, and his BS called out.
You did a perfect job of it yourself.
Maybe he will learn something if enough people do this to him........... Not. :lol

Or instead of talking about the posters themselves ad nauseum, you could simply address what was said.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 11:28 AM

Or instead of talking about the posters themselves ad nauseum, you could simply address what was said.

Or how about you addressing what was said, Blake, since you seem to think you're such an authority on how and what people should post?
Go ahead, be my guest.
I know his agenda. You can play with him if you want to so badly.
I have better things to do than waste my time with pseudo-intellectuals who only want to pretend.
I'm surprised you don't too, actually.
:lol

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 11:30 AM

I read all of that.

Damn you're stupid.

Ah ha, but the "seed" was planted!
Too late now, Blake.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 11:45 AM

xmas would rather whine and whine and whine for paragraph after paragraph than answer two simple questions. We have another SA210 on our hands.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 11:49 AM

xmas would rather whine and whine and whine for paragraph after paragraph than answer two simple questions. We have another SA210 on our hands.

Your agenda is transparent.
Give it up.
I made my mistake once already, I won't do it again.
So go play in your room now, and quit making a fool of yourself.
Children should be seen and not heard, period.
:lol

FuzzyLumpkins

11-14-2013, 11:49 AM

well xmas is melting down. still going the coward route though. dissemble dissemble dissemble.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 11:54 AM

well xmas is melting down. still going the coward route though. dissemble dissemble dissemble.

Oh my God, speak of the devil.
Tweedle Dee, and now Tweedle Dum.
I knew you would be here.
Are you here to see if Woo can come out and play with you?
Sorry, he has been sent to his room for some quiet time, but you are certainly welcome to join him there!
:lol

Blake

11-14-2013, 12:08 PM

Or how about you addressing what was said, Blake, since you seem to think you're such an authority on how and what people should post?
Go ahead, be my guest.
I know his agenda. You can play with him if you want to so badly.
I have better things to do than waste my time with pseudo-intellectuals who only want to pretend.
I'm surprised you don't too, actually.
:lol

Post what you want.

I just think someone desiring to be a neutral mediator would want to be above the one sided personal cut downs.

Blake

11-14-2013, 12:09 PM

Your agenda is transparent.
Give it up.
I made my mistake once already, I won't do it again.
So go play in your room now, and quit making a fool of yourself.
Children should be seen and not heard, period.
:lol

What's his agenda, mediator?

Blake

11-14-2013, 12:10 PM

Ah ha, but the "seed" was planted!
Too late now, Blake.
:lol

What does that even mean?

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 12:14 PM

Post what you want.

I just think someone desiring to be a neutral mediator would want to be above the one sided personal cut downs.

The offer of mediation, as you well know, was offered to you, and no one else.
You declined.
Case closed.
Offer off the table.
So you can drop the innuendos now, unless you prefer to live in the past.
Your choice.
My neutrality remains perfectly intact, thank you very much.
:lol

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 12:16 PM

What does that even mean?

Never you mind about what that means, Blakey, never you mind.
:lol

Blake

11-14-2013, 12:55 PM

Never you mind about what that means, Blakey, never you mind.
:lol

so it's just gibberish

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 01:00 PM

so it's just gibberish

I guess when you find out, then we'll both know.
In the meantime, enjoy.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 01:08 PM

Your agenda is transparent.

My agenda is to find out what you believe and why, but you're too chickenshit to tell me.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 01:16 PM

My agenda is to find out what you believe and why, but you're too chickenshit to tell me.

And my agenda is as transparent as they come.
You'll find out, when you can act in a more civilized and mature manner.
The one you're posting under now belies your age.
If you act like a child, don't be surprised when you are treated like one.
Just saying. :lol

Blake

11-14-2013, 01:18 PM

I guess when you find out, then we'll both know.
In the meantime, enjoy.
:lol

nobody enjoys gibberish.

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 01:20 PM

And my agenda is as transparent as they come.
You'll find out, when you can act in a more civilized and mature manner.
The one you're posting under now belies your age.
If you act like a child, don't be surprised when you are treated like one.
Just saying. :lol

Your agenda is to stall. I have asked you repeatedly without calling you names, but you simply refuse to answer. You're scared, plain and simple.

Blake

11-14-2013, 01:21 PM

And my agenda is as transparent as they come.
You'll find out, when you can act in a more civilized and mature manner.
The one you're posting under now belies your age.
If you act like a child, don't be surprised when you are treated like one.
Just saying. :lol

so if you can't beat em, join em?

That'll teach em!

CuckingFunt

11-14-2013, 01:26 PM

And my agenda is as transparent as they come.
You'll find out, when you can act in a more civilized and mature manner.

Your agenda isn't transparent if it can only be found out through certain behaviors.

Though in truth I think your agenda is far more obvious than you wish it to be.

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 01:29 PM

Your agenda isn't transparent if it can only be found out through certain behaviors.

Though in truth I think your agenda is far more obvious than you wish it to be.

As is yours.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 01:33 PM

Your agenda isn't transparent if it can only be found out through certain behaviors.

Though in truth I think your agenda is far more obvious than you wish it to be.

Well, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.
Far be it from me to want to change your opinion.
But it is what it is. I am not perfect, and never claimed such.
I do the best I can at any given moment, and IMHO so should we all.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 01:39 PM

so if you can't beat em, join em?

That'll teach em!

?

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 01:42 PM

so if you can't beat em, join em?

That'll teach em!

Drawing fallacious conclusions again?
You're quite good at that, you know.
I've noticed this about you.
A word to the wise, wake up, life is what you make it, each moment.
There is more to it than a simple "virtual" website.
And quit taking yourself so seriously.
:lol

Blake

11-14-2013, 01:47 PM

Get back to me when you are through with your lies and innuendos, better yet, when you can act like an adult, if you are one.
When you have a better grasp on the truth as it truly is, don't worry, I will see it in your posts, then you will get a better response.
Until then you will be treated like the bratty child that your words portray you as.
Wake up!
You are doing this to yourself.
:lol

I'm not lying at all.

you're acting immature right now, hypocrite.

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 01:48 PM

I read all of that.

Damn you're stupid.

"since you and chumpie shit your pants and are confirmed pants-shitters - your comments have lost all validity"

Blake

11-14-2013, 01:48 PM

"since you and chumpie shit your pants and are confirmed pants-shitters - your comments have lost all validity"

That doesn't make any sense.

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 01:50 PM

That doesn't make any sense.

It is truth. It is all that needs to be known about you and your "tough guy" posts.

"since you and chumpie shit your pants and are confirmed pants-shitters - your comments have lost all validity"

Blake

11-14-2013, 01:52 PM

Drawing fallacious conclusions again?
You're quite good at that, you know.
I've noticed this about you.
A word to the wise, wake up, life is what you make it, each moment.
There is more to it than a simple "virtual" website.
And quit taking yourself so seriously.
:lol

I'll take myself as serious as I please, thanks.

I'm taking you less serious about serious topics, though.

Blake

11-14-2013, 01:53 PM

It is truth. It is all that needs to be known about you and your "tough guy" posts.

"since you and chumpie shit your pants and are confirmed pants-shitters - your comments have lost all validity"

It's nonsense which is all you know.

Bugs Bunny

11-14-2013, 01:57 PM

It's nonsense which is all you know.

Ehh, What's up cuck?

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 01:58 PM

I'm not lying at all.

you're acting immature right now, hypocrite.

It's nonsense which is all you know.

Sorry, Blake, that criticism was not meant for you, it was meant for Woo.
I apologize, sincerely.
My bad.

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 01:58 PM

Ehh, What's up cuck?

:lmao

SA210

11-14-2013, 01:59 PM

Ehh, What's up cuck?

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Fabbs

11-14-2013, 02:00 PM

I won't agree with you, but i also will not stop you having your coffee served by her while you are believing she came from an ape.
http://s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/PfXAPfVIAL6FnSef1sTGbQ/l.jpg

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 02:01 PM

My agenda is to find out what you believe and why, but you're too chickenshit to tell me.

Your agenda is to stall. I have asked you repeatedly without calling you names, but you simply refuse to answer. You're scared, plain and simple.

Riiiiiiiight. :lol
And calling me chickenshit isn't insulting, or making baseless accusations, and then asking for a debate? Get serious!
Your and my posts are here on record.
I stand behind mine.

Get back to me when you are through with your lies and innuendos, better yet, when you can act like an adult, if you are one.
When you have a better grasp on the truth as it truly is, don't worry, I will see it in your posts, then you will get a better response.
Until then you will be treated like the bratty child that your words portray you as.
Wake up!
You are doing this to yourself.
:lo

Blake

11-14-2013, 02:10 PM

I won't agree with you, but i also will not stop you having your coffee served by her while you are believing she came from an ape.
http://s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/PfXAPfVIAL6FnSef1sTGbQ/l.jpg

Where did all the ugly chicks come from, Fabbs?

Blake

11-14-2013, 02:12 PM

Riiiiiiiight. :lol
And calling me chickenshit isn't insulting, or making baseless accusations, and then asking for a debate? Get serious!
Your and my posts are here on record.
I stand behind mine.

Get back to me when you are through with your lies and innuendos, better yet, when you can act like an adult, if you are one.
When you have a better grasp on the truth as it truly is, don't worry, I will see it in your posts, then you will get a better response.
Until then you will be treated like the bratty child that your words portray you as.
Wake up!
You are doing this to yourself.
:lo

so you're saying he is doing your meltdown to himself?

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 02:14 PM

Where did all the ugly chicks come from, Fabbs?

Confirmation of Blake's gayness.

SA210

11-14-2013, 02:15 PM

Confirmation of Blake's gayness.

lol

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 02:17 PM

so you're saying he is doing your meltdown to himself?

Obviously.
Are you blind to it, or biased?

Blake

11-14-2013, 03:01 PM

Confirmation of Blake's gayness.

Confirmation of your low IQ.

Blake

11-14-2013, 03:02 PM

Obviously.
Are you blind to it, or biased?

No, your meltdown is crystal clear.

But it's yours.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 03:23 PM

No, your meltdown is crystal clear.

But it's yours.

Meltdown?

You are mistaken again, but that does not surprise me.
You think I'm melting because I apologized to you?
Odd.
You have some very weird perceptions, not accurate, but weird nonetheless.
:lol

Blake

11-14-2013, 03:29 PM

Meltdown?

You are mistaken again, but that does not surprise me.
You think I'm melting because I apologized to you?
Odd.
You have some very weird perceptions, not accurate, but weird nonetheless.
:lol

No, I'm not sure why you melted down with that rant.

But it's most definitely a meltdown.

Not very becoming for a would-be neutral mediator.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 06:19 PM

No, I'm not sure why you melted down with that rant.

But it's most definitely a meltdown.

Not very becoming for a would-be neutral mediator.

Don't be ridiculous. The rant was a sarcastic joke, but I guess that went right over your head.
That's ok, you always get everything wrong anyway, it's part of your schtick that I've come to expect from you.
If ever I want to be misunderstood by someone, all I have to do is post to you. :lol
It's like we speak different languages or something.

But show me my melt around, that way I can recognize it myself the next time.

SA210

11-14-2013, 06:47 PM

Don't be ridiculous. The rant was a sarcastic joke, but I guess that went right over your head.
That's ok, you always get everything wrong anyway, it's part of your schtick that I've come to expect from you.
If ever I want to be misunderstood by someone, all I have to do is post to you. :lol
It's like we speak different languages or something.

He's too unintelligent :lol

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 06:51 PM

He's too unintelligent :lol

I still have a vague notion of what exactly a "melt down or around or whatever" is.
Everyone mentions it, but no one admits to it.
Is it something like a nervous breakdown?
:lol

SA210

11-14-2013, 07:07 PM

I still have a vague notion of what exactly a "melt down or around or whatever" is.
Everyone mentions it, but no one admits to it.
Is it something like a nervous breakdown?
:lol

:lmao YES! lol It's what you see the trolls doing the past few weeks and their biased sympathizers. Trolls chump (although he is still trying hard around you bc I called him on it lol), blake, cn, fuzzy, and the rest...the anger they are displaying that you have been witnessing. They have been having one epic huge collective meltdown (internet nervous breakdown, angry temper fits, revenge e-grudges)...and when they have them they claim that the ones that caused their meltdown are the ones having them lol

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 07:08 PM

:lmao YES! lol It's what you see the trolls doing the past few weeks and their biased sympathizers. Trolls chump (although he is still trying hard around you bc I called him on it lol), blake, cn, fuzzy, and the rest...the anger they are displaying that you have been witnessing. They have been having one epic huge collective meltdown (internet nervous breakdown, angry temper fits, revenge e-grudges)...and when they have them they claim that the ones that caused their meltdown are the ones having them lol

:lmao

We caused a whole site to meltdown!!!!

SA210

11-14-2013, 07:10 PM

:lmao

We caused a whole site to meltdown!!!!

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollinNo way, just widdle ol insignificant us???

lol those silly angry trolls

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 07:26 PM

There are good and bad personalities on both sides of this debate.
But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.
So, yes, he is correct, in this day and age it is a mystery, and that is WHY it is still called a mystery, by both sides, no, by all sides. Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".

This was my first post in this tread in over a week, and somehow someway Woo got all confused and wanted me to prove the existence of God.
I wonder why he has this fascination, it borders on a complex.
Now he thinks it is my job to explain it to prove it to him.
I also wonder if the poor dude has lost his mind because he has become obsessive over it to the point of making ridiculous accusations and insulting.
He must be a teenager or something because he wears his atheist tag like it is a badge of courage that must be defended at all costs.
I am beginning to think some of these obsessions from certain posters border on insanity.
Or maybe it is an inferiority complex.

My contention was about the "burden of proof" if you remember.
How that got confused and twisted to "Gods existence" escapes me.
You guys say he is a confirmed troller, and this is his schtick, so I will take your word for it.
I know how to put them in their place and still be neutral.

:lmao

We caused a whole site to meltdown!!!!

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollinNo way, just widdle ol insignificant us???

lol those silly angry trolls

SA210

11-14-2013, 07:29 PM

:lol :tu

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 07:30 PM

:lmao

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 07:42 PM

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 07:45 PM

Is this site changing, or what?
Kool, Bene, turning over new leaf?
I wonder who is next.
Blakey?
CN?
Or some of the women?
Blake missed the whole "seed" analogy as well. But what he doesn't realize is that it was planted.
We will see what happens.
These seeds of truth can be pretty powerful stuff once they take root and begin to grow.
:lol

I don't see people that are absolutely closed-minded and incapable of change -

changing anytime soon. It is what it is.

SA210

11-14-2013, 07:49 PM

Is this site changing, or what?
Kool, Bene, turning over new leaf?
I wonder who is next.
Blakey?
CN?
Or some of the women?
Blake missed the whole "seed" analogy as well. But what he doesn't realize is that it was planted.
We will see what happens.
These seeds of truth can be pretty powerful stuff once they take root and begin to grow.
:lol

Nah, you're too unintelligent and you will have to prove these seeds exist -Blake

To which posters are you claiming are women? -chump

:lol so why don't you answer chumps question tbh -cn

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 07:56 PM

I don't see people that are absolutely closed-minded and incapable of change -

changing anytime soon. It is what it is.

I just thought I would warn some of the trolls on here what they are in for.
They can run, they can hide, but they can't escape from themselves, anymore than Kool could.
I didn't know fuuzzy, Woo, and CN were trolls. There are others too.
Some I consider to be quasi-trolls, like ol Blakey. He tries real hard, but fails miserably at it.
:lol
Hey, maybe that is a new term for wannabe trolls, quasi-trolls.
:lol

Wild Cobra

11-14-2013, 07:58 PM

I can't help but think of the devolver that Harry used on Liam.

Jake the Muss

11-14-2013, 07:59 PM

I can't help but think of the devolver that Harry used on Liam.

Mate, what is a devolver?

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 08:01 PM

Harry Potter

Wild Cobra

11-14-2013, 08:16 PM

Mate, what is a devolver?

LOL...

I just found a YOUTUBE of it, go to 18:50 in the time:

oeus6Y3Dzp4

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 08:18 PM

And calling me chickenshit isn't insulting, or making baseless accusations, and then asking for a debate? Get serious!

You lack reading comprehension. I never claimed that I only asked you civilly. I did repeatedly ask you what you believed and why. You chose not to answer, so I called you out for being the coward that you are.

Why are you so afraid to say what you believe, SA210 2.0? Ask me the questions that I asked you and I will gladly answer them. It's not that hard. Stop being a coward.

silverblk mystix

11-14-2013, 08:22 PM

You lack reading comprehension. I never claimed that I only asked you civilly. I did repeatedly ask you what you believed and why. You chose not to answer, so I called you out for being the coward that you are.

Why are you so afraid to say what you believe, SA210 2.0? Ask me the questions that I asked you and I will gladly answer them. It's not that hard. Stop being a coward.

SMH

Being destroyed by Avante, and then by me, wasn't enough?

Now you are begging for xmas to destroy you?

Funny shit.

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 08:31 PM

:lol sbm could never destroy anybody so long as he keeps ignoring the advice that he gives everybody else.

":cry live life to its fullest :cry"
":cry stop worrying about what others say :cry"
"No, I'm not a hypocrite, because only the people I sided with and I can argue on SpursTalk! Everybody else is just wasting their lives."

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 08:41 PM

SMH

Being destroyed by Avante, and then by me, wasn't enough?

Now you are begging for xmas to destroy you?

Funny shit.

Nah, a quarter of the time Woo acts civil, but the rest he is insulting and flat out contentious.
So I won't even try to destroy him in the interest of that 1/4 decency.
But how can someone who resorts to ugly immature behavior expect anyone to take him seriously enough to discuss anything with him, much less give him the time of day?
That is what makes me question his intelligence.
That should be a no-brainer!
:lol

The sad truth is, so far when he has broken down my posts to spew his BS, he has failed to understand anything that I said, similar to how he has replied to you SBM. Because his rebuttals have noting to do with my answers. It is as if he made up my answers for me and was debating that.
That is preposterous.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 08:47 PM

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 08:58 PM

Woo, you need to learn debate decorum before you can begin to do the debate itself. You cannot put the cart before the horse. Can you get this through your thick head?
Truth.
You will never get anyone of any intelligence to debate you or discuss anything with you with your attitude of hostility and derisiveness, pure and simple.
To any normal person it reeks of "baiting", which smacks of trolling.
Why should I, or anyone else take you seriously when you act that way? They won't, they'll laugh at your supposed ignorance.
Just saying.

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 09:05 PM

:lol At the thought of you destroying me. You're too afraid to even take a stance, so what do I have to fear? And you have also shown that you can't read too well, judging by your previous response to me.

Woo, you fucked up, buddy. You made your bed. Now go and sleep in it like a good little boy.
Then after a while, if and when you show your face here again, and provided you display some badly needed decency, respect, and civility, maybe then someone will be inclined to discuss something with you.
But not with the hot headed attitude you are running under now.
Only an idiot would, and I am no idiot.
Do you understand?
Or are you going to continue to spin your baiting BS?
My bet is on the latter.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-14-2013, 09:09 PM

And I am just saying that you are a coward with hurt feelings. I don't give a shit if you call me names; I will present my points regardless. When you are called a name, you want to take your ball and go home. You. Are. A. Coward. Period. You feign outrage so you can get out of answering questions. You're just another SA210. Instead of answering a simple question, you will instead post paragraph after paragraph about how you don't like how other posters conduct themselves. You're a baby.

I will ask you again, and this time pretend that this is a general question that you don't have to follow up on: Do you reject or accept the claim, "A god exists"? If you accept it, explain why. Just respond. You don't even have to reply to me ever again (that would still make you a coward, but you'll at least be a coward who isn't afraid to take a stance).

mouse

11-14-2013, 09:16 PM

Original question: We evolved from a great ape, now what?

Answer: We use 13 pages proving it

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/th_Alternative-Design-MIT.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Alternative-Design-MIT.mp4)

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 09:18 PM

Woo, I am not even going to read what you posted.
Your first sentence probably sums up what your whole post is about and it obviously is baiting, contentious, disrespectful, insulting, and totally hostile.
Your spots are showing. You don't even attempt to change your attitude.
Live with yourself, if you can.
Make all the baseless, fallacious accusations you want until you turn blue in the face from lack of breath, because the next color you will turn is red, from making such a total fool of yourself.
You are doing it, not me. I am just casually watching the theatrics.
:lol

mouse

11-14-2013, 09:27 PM

Woo, I am not even going to read what you posted.

He can, be taught !!

http://princessofagrabah.webs.com/photos/Humorous-And-Dramatic-Pictures/japanmovieprogram_20_td.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh8mn1eWSV1qg9hhso1_500.jpg

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 09:45 PM

He can, be taught !!

http://princessofagrabah.webs.com/photos/Humorous-And-Dramatic-Pictures/japanmovieprogram_20_td.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh8mn1eWSV1qg9hhso1_500.jpg

I've already been teaching fuuzzy the rudiments of basic English and discussion and grammar.
I don't need another pupil.
I didn't even want the first one.
But they keep pestering me.
:lol

Clipper Nation

11-14-2013, 09:57 PM

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 10:38 PM

Once again, you are using your overexaggerated outrage about other peoples' tone and word choice as an excuse to duck their questions and avoid addressing their points, tbh....

I guess your reading comprehension suffers too because I answered every one of the questions on the topic we were debating, but he didn't understand any of them.
Then out of the clear blue he brings up another topic before finishing the first one, expecting me to reply to that one as well as attributing it to me when it was another poster who was arguing it.
There. Satisfied? :lol
Sometimes I wonder how any of you ever got out of school.
You can make all the silly claims all you want to but it does not change the facts.
Go back and read the thread progression next time before bringing any more silly false claims my way.
It would do wonders for your credibility, and self esteem. Plus it would save me some writing time.
:lol

xmas1997

11-14-2013, 10:43 PM

Once again, you are using your overexaggerated outrage about other peoples' tone and word choice as an excuse to duck their questions and avoid addressing their points, tbh....

Over exaggerated?
Outrage?
Me?
Compared to what you just wrote?
:lmao

Blake

11-14-2013, 11:50 PM

Sometimes I wonder how any of you ever got out of school.

it's you that's behind here, tbh.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 03:47 AM

I guess your reading comprehension suffers too because I answered every one of the questions on the topic we were debating, but he didn't understand any of them.

Let's review:
- You tried to assert that the definition of atheism that I posted was made up by me because it didn't exactly match the definition on dictionary.com. Let's first disregard the fact that you are getting your definition of atheism from a general dictionary as if dictionary.com is an actual authority on the subject (hell, I took one philosophy class and even I know not to use a simple dictionary when talking about potentially complex subjects :lol).

Anyway, here's what I described atheism as:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

Here's you accusing me of making it up:

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?

I have to take a break for a moment and again laugh at you for using broad definitions and thinking that they are the only definitions there are.

Anyway, here's the rest of your post:

In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition.Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.

That's you accusing me of making up the definition I provided.

Again, here's "my" definition:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it.

And here's the second definition on Dictionary.com, which was YOUR source, by the way:

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So, not only were you completely wrong about me trying to establish myself as an authority, you also never even bothered to admit it. Hell, you were too lazy to even read the second definition from your own source. I pointed out repeatedly that dictionary.com does not contradict what I posted, and you ignored me.

So, in regards to that whole definition of atheism argument we were having, YOU. WERE. WRONG. You were wrong when you accused me of making up my own definition and you were being stupid and lazy for using dictionary.com as your source in the first place.

If we are going to get anywhere, first acknowledge that you were wrong when you accused me of trying to set myself up as an authority on what atheism is.

The Reckoning

11-15-2013, 04:03 AM

how can anyone read xmas' posts anyway? kills my eyes after the first line with how he spaces.

ChumpDumper

11-15-2013, 04:10 AM

I keep reading the thread title wrong.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110202104355/hanna-barbera/images/8/81/Great_Grape_Ape.jpg

And yes, he is taking a shit on this thread.

FuzzyLumpkins

11-15-2013, 05:55 AM

I've already been teaching fuuzzy the rudiments of basic English and discussion and grammar.
I don't need another pupil.
I didn't even want the first one.
But they keep pestering me.
:lol

Gossiping about me again? I wasn't even around yesterday yet here you are talking bad about me.

What a backbiting scumbag you are.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 07:17 AM

Let's review:
- You tried to assert that the definition of atheism that I posted was made up by me because it didn't exactly match the definition on dictionary.com. Let's first disregard the fact that you are getting your definition of atheism from a general dictionary as if dictionary.com is an actual authority on the subject (hell, I took one philosophy class and even I know not to use a simple dictionary when talking about potentially complex subjects :lol).

Anyway, here's what I described atheism as:

Here's you accusing me of making it up:

I have to take a break for a moment and again laugh at you for using broad definitions and thinking that they are the only definitions there are.

Anyway, here's the rest of your post:

That's you accusing me of making up the definition I provided.

Again, here's "my" definition:

And here's the second definition on Dictionary.com, which was YOUR source, by the way:

So, not only were you completely wrong about me trying to establish myself as an authority, you also never even bothered to admit it. Hell, you were too lazy to even read the second definition from your own source. I pointed out repeatedly that dictionary.com does not contradict what I posted, and you ignored me.

So, in regards to that whole definition of atheism argument we were having, YOU. WERE. WRONG. You were wrong when you accused me of making up my own definition and you were being stupid and lazy for using dictionary.com as your source in the first place.

If we are going to get anywhere, first acknowledge that you were wrong when you accused me of trying to set myself up as an authority on what atheism is.

Woo, I did not get the general impression you were anywhere near being sincere about wanting to debate this subject. Rather your tone gave the opposite impression, that your sole motivation was to ridicule, poke holes, and generally make a mockery of the whole thread so that you could do some trolling.
And every one of your posts since, appeared to back this up.

But in the interest of good spirit, and because you at least changed your tone somewhat, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and go back and reread the entire thread to see where this all got hay wired, thrown for a loop, so to speak.
Then I will revisit this post of yours and reply.

Give me a bit of time to do this.
But I warn you, that since this takes time and effort, if I get a hint your sole aim is to bait and troll, then do not expect me to ever give you that benefit again.

My motivation is solely to examine, understand, and reexamine, so that I, regardless of others, might learn something that maybe I had hitherto missed.
You never know where truth will come from, or from who.

I will try to do this with a nonjudgmental, non biased, and open frame of mind.
If one presupposes anything, then it could taint the tincture.
If you go into something like this with already a presupposed idea, then you will look for those things that support your notion, and discard those things that do not. I do not want that to happen.

At best we may be able to unravel a bit of the "mystery" on all this. At worst, we will come away convinced that no one can prove anything one way or the other at this point in time, which was my summation when I entered this discussion with you, and thus arrived at the burden of proof issue and verdict.

Fair enough?

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 07:44 AM

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 07:51 AM

Biologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologists) reason that all living organisms on Earth must share a single last universal ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor), because it would be virtually impossible that two or more separate lineages could have independently developed the many complex biochemical mechanisms common to all living organisms.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-35)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-36) As previously mentioned the earliest organisms for which fossil evidence is available arebacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria), cells far too complex to have arisen directly from non-living materials.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CowenHistLifeEd3P6-37) The lack of fossil or geochemical evidence for earlier organisms has left plenty of scope for hypotheses, which fall into two main groups: 1) that life arose spontaneously on Earth or 2) that it was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe.

You are grasping for the "seeded theory", right?
Well, if God flew around in an unidentified spacecraft, quite possibly. :lol

Atheists are within their boundaries to have these discussions. Theists aren't. Theists profess a belief in a watchful God, yet many live as if they don't believe it either.

At least the atheist has the courage of his convictions.

The idea that life on Earth was "seeded" from elsewhere in the Universe dates back at least to the Greek philosopher Anaximander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander) in the sixth century BCE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era).[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-38) In the twentieth century it was proposed by the physical chemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_chemistry) Svante Arrhenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius),[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Arrhenius1903-39) by the astronomers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer)Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe),[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-HoyleWickramasinghe1979-40) and by molecular biologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_biologist) Francis Crick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick) and chemist Leslie Orgel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Orgel).[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CrickOrgel1973DirectedPanspermia-41) There are three main versions of the "seeded from elsewhere" hypothesis: from elsewhere in our Solar System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System) via fragments knocked into space by a large meteor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor) impact, in which case the most credible sources are Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42) and Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus);[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-43) by alien visitors, possibly as a result of accidental contamination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contamination) by micro-organisms that they brought with them;[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-CrickOrgel1973DirectedPanspermia-41) and from outside the Solar System but by natural means.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Arrhenius1903-39)[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42) Experiments suggest that some micro-organisms can survive the shock of being catapulted into space and some can survive exposure to radiation for several days, but there is no proof that they can survive in space for much longer periods.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42)Scientists are divided over the likelihood of life arising independently on Mars,[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-44) or on other planets in our galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy).[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#cite_note-Scientific-American-panspermia-42)

From your linky..

The most commonly accepted location of the root of the tree of life is between a monophyletic do,main Bacteria and a clade formed by Archaea and Eukaryota of what is referred to as the "traditional tree of life" based on several molecular studies starting with C. Woese.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#cite_note-18) A very small minority of studies have concluded differently, namely that the root is in the Domain Bacteria, either in the phylum Firmicutes[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#cite_note-19) or that the phylum Chloroflexi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroflexi_%28phylum%29) is basal to a clade with Archaea+Eukaryotes and the rest of Bacteria as proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cavalier-Smith).[20]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor#cite_note-CS2-20) So then it's commonly thought that we all came from bacteria.

God works in mysterious ways, and Satan must be bleach.

Are you quite sure you want to do this?
Or would you prefer to troll?
Because this will be involved.

Above were probably the first decent posts in rebuttal to DMCs posts concerning some evolution theory myths and explanations. All of that was in reply to what Rob was asking about evolution in general.
Intermingled with some "baiting" from a few, some minor discussion of comedians who use evolution in their acts, and other mishmash.
All of this managed to only get us to Page 3.

Ok, I will return, have patience.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 07:59 AM

What does page 3 have to do with this? What do robdiaz and DMC have to do with the discussion that WE were having? I didn't quote them, did I? They weren't mentioned anywhere in the post I made at the top of the page.

Get back lack to the conversation that we were having about what atheism means. Admit that you were wrong.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 08:05 AM

No, not fair enough. All you have to do is click the links in the quotes that I posted. Admit that you were wrong. I didn't want to waste more time on this, but since you insisted on it, I will. And this time I won't let you slide like I did before.

You accused me of making up a definition for atheism; I didn't. You were wrong. Admit it.

Never mind, your "baiting" BS is noted and your agenda exposed for all to see.
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you ran from it.
So forget it.
Do it yourself.

And No, you were wrong, and are just too dense headed and too into your troll routine to want to pursue a decent discussion or debate.
So we end up right where I figured we would after I was warned of your schtick, nowhere.
I won't do this for you again, you were warned.
Your agenda is laughable, and totally transparent.
But at least no one can claim I did not try to give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt a competent debate and discussion with you.
If they do, then they are being as dense headed and trollish as you are.
Enjoy your childish games. I just choose not to play them.
Come back when you are an adult and we can have an adults discussion.
As I said, your agenda is transparent and laughable.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:10 AM

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 08:17 AM

:lol Wait, what?! Are you actually serious now? I am trolling because I don't want to talk about things that were completely irrelevant to our initial argument?

You constantly wanted me to get back to our original discussion, but now that I did, you don't want to talk about it anymore.

They were not irrelevant, they were what led up to our discussion.
If you want everything in proper perspective, then you have to recap in order to see where the thread was going, and why.
Or did you fail to read any of the thread, and just made your post irrespective of that?
Everything has to put in the proper context.

leemajors

11-15-2013, 08:17 AM

Never mind, your "baiting" BS is noted and your agenda exposed for all to see.
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you ran from it.
So forget it.
Do it yourself.

And No, you were wrong, and are just too dense headed and too into your troll routine to want to pursue a decent discussion or debate.
So we end up right where I figured we would after I was warned of your schtick, nowhere.
I won't do this for you again, you were warned.
Your agenda is laughable, and totally transparent.
But at least no one can claim I did not try to give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt a competent debate and discussion with you.
If they do, then they are being as dense headed and trollish as you are.
Enjoy your childish games. I just choose not to play them.
Come back when you are an adult and we can have an adults discussion.
As I said, your agenda is transparent and laughable.
:lol

yours isn't?

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:21 AM

They were not irrelevant, they were what led up to our discussion.
If you want everything in proper perspective, then you have to recap in order to see where the thread was going, and why.
Or did you fail to read any of the thread, and just made your post irrespective of that?
Everything has to put in the proper context.

No, one does not have to read all the previous posts. You are a making an extremely simple matter far more complicated than it has any right to be.

• I provided a definition of atheism.
• You accused me of making it up.
• I didn't make it up.
• You were wrong.

That's it. DMC and robdiaz are irrelevant to that certain set of facts. Stick to the conversation WE were having.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 08:29 AM

yours isn't?

No, it isn't, simply because it is totally transparent and laughable.
I'm certainly not going to get mad about it. There are more important things in life to be mad about.
I offered to go back and try to clear this up with him, even though I was warned by others that his agenda was solely to "troll" no matter what I did.
So, I in turn warned him of such. Complete transparency from the beginning of this new attempt.
Yet after starting it, he isn't happy with it.
He wants to begin in the middle somewhere and not where all of this started.
So there is no way I or anyone can clear it up.
Rather he chooses more of his "baiting" just to get me into an argument with him.
It is easy to see.
And it is easier to let him play his games with himself.
I'm just glad I can laugh about it at not having to have to follow through with an explanation.
:lol

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 08:31 AM

No, one does not have to read all the previous posts. You are a making an extremely simple matter far more complicated than it has any right to be.

• I provided a definition of atheism.
• You accused me of making it up.
• I didn't make it up.
• You were wrong.

That's it. DMC and robdiaz are irrelevant to that certain set of facts. Stick to the conversation WE were having.

So, you made your post and never even read the thread?
The conversation was not just "we", it was "all of us".

FuzzyLumpkins

11-15-2013, 08:36 AM

Woo, I did not get the general impression you were anywhere near being sincere about wanting to debate this subject. Rather your tone gave the opposite impression, that your sole motivation was to ridicule, poke holes, and generally make a mockery of the whole thread so that you could do some trolling.
And every one of your posts since, appeared to back this up.

But in the interest of good spirit, and because you at least changed your tone somewhat, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and go back and reread the entire thread to see where this all got hay wired, thrown for a loop, so to speak.
Then I will revisit this post of yours and reply.

Give me a bit of time to do this.
But I warn you, that since this takes time and effort, if I get a hint your sole aim is to bait and troll, then do not expect me to ever give you that benefit again.

My motivation is solely to examine, understand, and reexamine, so that I, regardless of others, might learn something that maybe I had hitherto missed.
You never know where truth will come from, or from who.

I will try to do this with a nonjudgmental, non biased, and open frame of mind.
If one presupposes anything, then it could taint the tincture.
If you go into something like this with already a presupposed idea, then you will look for those things that support your notion, and discard those things that do not. I do not want that to happen.

At best we may be able to unravel a bit of the "mystery" on all this. At worst, we will come away convinced that no one can prove anything one way or the other at this point in time, which was my summation when I entered this discussion with you, and thus arrived at the burden of proof issue and verdict.

Fair enough?

How much you want to bet that given any amount of time he will never actually address the question, wbk's alternate definition or anything actually pertaining to the argument?

He's a coward after all.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:39 AM

So, you made your post and never even read the thread?

No, what the OP is about is completely IRRELEVANT to the conversation that WE were having about what atheism means.

Again:
• I posted a definition of atheism.
• You accused me of making it up.
• I didn't make it up.
• Therefore, you were wrong.

If you think I am mistaken in my recollection of events, please tell me which of those 4 events didn't happen and why.

You didn't want to talk about your reason for believing in God. Fine. You wanted me to go back to our previous discussion. Fine, I did. I did what you asked and went back to our original discussion. At least have the courtesy to do the same.

Suspect

11-15-2013, 08:42 AM

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130407043421/anime-arts/images/3/3a/Ozaru.jpg

DJR210

11-15-2013, 08:46 AM

:lol xmas1997 calling others trolls yet almost single handedly ruining The Club with his seemingly 75-100 haiku formatted posts a day in almost every thread on the board. To top off his shitty posts he will shamelessly bump his own crap threads and threads he is in discussion (if you wanna call it that) in with periods to continue to keep his crap near the top of the forum.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:08 AM

:lmao Dumbfuck who doesn't understand basic science

1/10

We also share 98% with mice and pigs, not to mention 50% DNA with bananas.

Do a little research before you enter a debate cursing like a cab driver.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139

Are you talking about the Science that just the other day said they were wrong about the dinosaurs all along?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224485&p=6934425#post6934425

Or the science that said Asbestos is safe for your kids to play in? maybe you meant the science that said Lucky Strikes cigarets are good for you?

It can't be today's science the one that still can't find a cure for the the common cold is it? please be specific.

:lol "some scientists were wrong about something, therefore science in general is wrong"
:lol "scientists can't make mistakes ever"
:lol "paleontologists discovered fossils of a new species of dinosaur, therefore science was wrong about dinosaurs"
:lol "since a cure for a virus hasn't been found, all scientists, no matter what field of expertise they are in, are suspect"

Vintage mouse retard logic. The constant use of "science" as some kind of person rather than a system is just the icing on the top.

Substitute the word "scientist" with

jeebotard, christian, bible thumper or any religious/spiritual label - and it will sound just as ridiculous -

like i said a million times - no side is superior

Yeah, because it probably wouldn't make any sense as a sentence. In regards to religious and spiritual beliefs, you are completely wrong. There either is a god(s) or there isn't. The numerous religions that man created throughout our history can't all be right, but they can definitely all be wrong.

won't waste a lot of time with you - but the idiotic crap you spew -

"if the bible has an inconsistency - it is all garbage" is what I am referring to.

No difference - either side - no one is superior.

Never had I made an argument like that.

If everybody is the same, you should be able to demonstrate that without using strawmen.

Take your time, I'll wait.

For everyone's apparent lazy edification, the thread had died 4 weeks ago, but was revived by CN 2 days ago, and these were the posts that were in process.

Wait, I'm not through.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 09:11 AM

For everyone's apparent lazy edification, the thread had died 4 weeks ago, but was revived by CN 2 days ago, and these were the posts that were in process.

Wait, I'm not through.

None of that has to do with the conversation we were having. Stop stalling and either refute the point I made or admit that you were wrong.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:18 AM

Never had I made an argument like that.

If everybody is the same, you should be able to demonstrate that without using strawmen.

Take your time, I'll wait.

Nothing to demonstrate. No one knows the truth about "god"

Complete and absolute mystery. Only idiots act superior because they think they "know" - one way or the other - and there are idiots on both sides,

Neither side is superior. All of us are blind.

He is also either ignorant to the scientific method or chooses to ignore it since it destroys his whole anti-science stance :lol

Cool dodge and pathetic attempt to try and change the subject. I already destroyed you before on this matter, yet you keep coming back for more.

Why don't you use another strawman and start talking about your "mystic" nonsense again? I need a good laugh.

You never learned anything the first time - you are still programmed, still blind, still brainwashed.

How do you tell a man in a dream who is unaware it is a dream - that he is dreaming?

Sorry, you can't.

I can't because this isn't Inception and I can't go into other people's dreams.

But please continue trying to pass of your gibberish as insightful, though. We all appreciate your pseudo-enlightened shtick followed by calling people who were mean to you on the internet "faggots" and "cucks."

There are good and bad personalities on both sides of this debate.
But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.
So, yes, he is correct, in this day and age it is a mystery, and that is WHY it is still called a mystery, by both sides, no, by all sides. Because there are more angles than just "there is or is not a God".

The genetic resemblance to other mammals isn't shocking at all. 99% is impossible to ignore

You call me out for lacking "Intelligent conversation skills," then you deliberately take one of my posts out of context. :lol You are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

None of the sayings that you posted in the last hour have made any sense. At all. You're terrible. Stop.

The only one who has to prove anything is the one making the god claim. That's it and that's all.

No there aren't. Either your God exists in reality or it does not. So far, neither you nor any other believer has provided a single compelling reason to believe that the former is true.

All of this and you are still in the same position as before;

no better than anyone else and no closer to "god" "truth" than anyone else either.

Pretty pointless actually - except you claim superiority and in doing so - define yourself as an idiot.

Then when the conversation restarted 2 days ago, the quotes up above and these quotes in this thread were posted.
Everything has to be put in proper context or there is no sense in doing this in the first place.
You asked why, I am giving it to you.
Are you afraid to face the truth?
Then shut up and read.
Your first post was above where you were laughing and saying something about Mouse' retarded logic.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 09:23 AM

None of that has ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION. Nothing. What utterly pointless exercise.

Address the points I made or shut up.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:32 AM

None of that has ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION. Nothing. What utterly pointless exercise.

Address the points I made or shut up.

I am getting there.
Do you want the "truth", or do you want to continue "solely" with your false accusations?

By the way, the above order of posts were as they came and on Pages 6 & 7.

At this point you were arguing basically with SBM. I had the one post above as you can see.

Next came:

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:39 AM

Not only does this post lack any substance whatsoever, it also contradicts damn-near all your other posts on this forum. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't actually be having this discussion with me right now. If you practiced what you preached, you wouldn't be so caught up in your e-wars with half the posters in The Club. Until you stop saying one thing then doing another, you should stop giving out life advice.

Because you fail to understand simple logic dose not give your argument any more validity or basis in reality.
Not trying to persuade you of anything. That is for you to do. And the only thing you will ultimately "believe" as being truth will be your own personal subjective experience. That, neither science, nor mysticism, nor philosophy, nor any of your senses, nor anyone's reasonable logic, will be enough for you. Only "your own personal experience" will suffice.

So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does. One is not mutually exclusive of the other. Nor does one view supersede the other.

And yes, there are many more angles than you are capable of understanding than a purely black or white perspective concerning "is or is not a God", there is much more gray area than you are willing to acknowledge because you first have to realize that nothing exists in reality that is solely and simply only one or the other. There are exceptions to every rule in the universe.

Yes it does, because logic and reality are directly related.

My own personal experience doesn't dictate truth.

In regards to the god claim, yes they absolutely do. The one making the claim provides the proof. It's that simple.

Uh, yes they are. By definition, they are mutually exclusive.

No, there aren't any more angles. If you can show me something that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, then I will concede your point. Until then, it is either one or the other.

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
So the real truth is they neither have the burden of proof, or if you prefer, disproof.
Just because you say they do does not make it so. And the same is true that just because they may say it does, equally does not make it so.

:lmao

Of course, atheists aren't putting forth the claim there isn't a god, because that's not what atheism is.

The default position is non-belief. Every single person who was ever born was born an atheist. The believer has chosen to not to take the default position, so they therefore have the burden of proof. That is literally what burden of proof is.

lug nuts from a Chevy would screw onto a Pontiac that doesn't mean they both evolved from a skateboard.

Similarities only confirm there was a common designer. Besides that if you was really intelligent you would not want to have any Ape in your DNA. Why are you so excited to have it?

Evolution is not a scientific law.

Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
Scientific disagreement

There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”

Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1997, p. 52).

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you". Thus it fails as does your logic in this regard.

And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
More fallacious and convoluted logic on your part.

And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

Atheists are the critics, theists are the ones asserting the claim that God exists, therefore theists have the burden of proof.....

We still can't create one living cell without borrowing DNA from another. Maybe one day...

No more so than the atheist is claiming the belief that God does not exist.
You want one to go first?
Then toss a coin.
Then you can have your pro and con and your burden of proof.
It is too easy for you to say the belief "in" is more or less compelling than the belief "against."
Both are equal in assertion.

So there we are now up to the point of discussing "burden of proof".
I am doing this so you can see how this developed.
If you want to stop, just say so now.
I am also doing this to show you that your basic argument was not with me but with others like SBM and Mouse.
I left out a few insignificant posts by other people, but you can go and read them if you want to.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:47 AM

We still can't create one living cell without borrowing DNA from another. Maybe one day...

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?
In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.
I quoted it verbatim.
If you want to do it that way then your definition has no more validity than opinion, or as I said before, your own personal subjective experience. And if that is the case then it falls into the gray areas that I was referring to.

To your second argument, some of what you say is true except you leave much out. It is true, knowledge is gained "partly" through logic and reasoning, but that is not the sum total. Rather it is also gained through experience, intuition (the "hunch"), imagination (the conception of an idea), study, scientific method (replication), and the examination of evidence, etc.
And I must respectfully disagree with you when I state that the truest best way to know something is to experience it for yourself. This is why it is commonly said that experience is the best teacher. This is also why we learn the greatest lessons in life, and they make the greatest imprint upon our psyche, from our own mistakes.

My point is that neither can the theist prove his belief of the existence of God, any more than the atheist can prove his belief that there is no God.

1.) Words tend to be defined differently from source to source.
2.) A basic definition often doesn't capture the intricacies and baggage that comes with some terms. There are far better sources for the definition of atheism than dictionary.com.

I didn't establish myself as a source. Look at the second definition from your source. That is the definition I provided.

All of which fall under logic and reasoning. Thank you for agreeing with me.

And I must state that you are utterly wrong. The best way to find out the truth about something is to have independent verification. People have their own biases, delusions, etc. An independent source's corroboration is far more conducive towards discovering what is true than personal anecdotes.

Your point is tired and stupid. The time to believe is when there is a sufficient amount of evidence for that belief. Anecdotes mean shit. We aren't on the same footing. If something is true, it should be able to be verified by others. The fact that your god has not be verified means that you shouldn't believe in it. You, however, are just content with belief because it comforts you.

For someone who has much to say but little to stand behind, you have given me no "facts" whatsoever, just more of your self proclaimed opinions. Opinions do not make something a fact. They are subjective in nature.

And if you want to make up your own dictionary definitions using such intangibles as "intricacies" and "baggage", then there is no common ground in fact, rather it is of your own fancy. No one can debate your fancy.
Thus you have not disputed anything I've said, rather you have strengthened my argument, which I do believe was not your intention to do.

So you are mistaken in saying I agreed with you because my own statement was obviously to the contrary.
Reread what I said. You draw erroneous conclusions at your peril.

And furthermore you create your own unverifiable definitions to suit your own unverifiable purposes.
If we are not able to begin the debate on some common ground of commonly accepted definitions then we cannot debate. It would be the same as saying I am talking about apples and you about pears.

You are welcome to thank me all you want, but the only one you are deluding is yourself.
No, instead you revert back to lame accusations in an attempt at an even lamer diversion by using "tired and stupid" as the crux of your point. These have no more merit in fact than does the price of tea in China. And are more of your opinions at best.

You had best reexamine your definitions of "logic" and "reasoning", unless you wish to make up your own definitions of those as well because any grade schooler can tell you that they are not inclusive of the modes to arrive at truth.

The only thing I agree with (pay attention) is that I quote, "we are not on the same footing", and that is about the only valid thing you have had to say IMHO, because after all, that is all you have given me so far, your opinions.
We can discuss opinions, but we certainly can't debate them. That would be illogical IMHO.
:lol

Again, look at the second Dictionary.com definition of atheism. I didn't make up my own definition of anything.

Wrong. Experience, intuition, imagination, examination, and replication all directly relate to logic and reasoning, so you trying to set them apart makes no sense.

:lol Apparently, the first definition of atheism that you come across is the only definition there is, and anybody who uses a slightly different definition is making up their own definition.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lack%20of%20belief%20in%20gods

i didn't make up anything.

Already addressed this. Logic and reasoning shaped the scientific method. Logic and reasoning tells one to draw from experience. Logic and reasoning are directly related to finding out the truth.

You having no good reason to believe in a god is not just a mere opinion. You have none and you have presented none so far. Are you going to keep pretending that I am making up definitions and not providing proof that a god exists?

:lol This dude really thinks that the first bare bones definition from dictionary.com is the only definition of atheism there is. First of all, dictionary.com is not the first and last authority on what atheism is. It is not an infallible source that overrides every other source. Second, the second definition matches exactly the one I provided.

Not only are you being extremely stupid by accepting the first definition of a word that you come across, you are being extremely lazy by not even bothering to read the second one from your own source.

Do I now?
Seems to me you are engaging in a deliberate attempt to dissemble the facts in order to justify your argument instead of facing the fact that you cannot win an argument based purely upon opinions.

And now typically Fuuzzy has chimed in with his deliberate "baiting" tactics again hoping to show he may be somewhat intelligent, but cannot face the fact that insults do not, nor will they ever, be conducive to a proper debate, nor endow one with innate intelligence. Rather it is the common tactic of the pseudo-intellectual. :lol

But since you brought it up, let's examine the definitions to see if you are right.
Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(Dictionary.com)

Let's take another.
Atheism: in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities,
in a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
(Wikipedia)

So how many do I have to go through before you realize what I have been saying?
Is your only intention to sidetrack the issue?
Shall I continue?

Logic: it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity,
it names the normative study of reasoning or a branch thereof.
(Wikipedia)

But let's get another one.
Logic: 1. the science that investigates the principals governing correct or reliable inference,
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation,
3. the system or principals of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study,
4. reason or sound judgement, as in utterances or actions,
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness.
(Dictionary.com)

Do you want more?
Where does it end, where it meets your particular definition? That is absurd.
I took the most concise definition available, but that did not suit you, so you chose to obfuscate the issue.

Should I define "Reasoning" for you as well?
No, because unless you agree to some common ground, as I stated before, we are debating "opinions", there can be no clear cut definitive outcome unless you debate "facts", which you still fail to produce.

I will give you one thing though, you have successfully sidetracked the topic of this thread. :lol

This, above, is a clear cut example of how you debate or discuss an issue, slinging insults for lack of facts, and substituting "opinions" instead of "facts".
These are Fuuzzy' tactics, and they do not fly in a true discussion or debate.
Go back and try again.
:lol

Ok, all of the rest of this is pretty much on Page 8 and beyond.

So make your case, if you will.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:54 AM

I didn't obfuscate shit, moron. I stated the simplest definition of atheism there is, then you tried to argue that the only real definition of atheism is the first one found on dictionary.com. You were wrong.

Now I don't even know what kind of stupid point you are trying to make. The scientific method was formed through logic and reasoning. It is not independent of it; it is a result of it. And like I said before, if you wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be a theist, because the god claim has not satisfied it's burden of proof. It simply is not a matter of opinion. The way to discover the truth is by examining the evidence, then working our way to a conclusion. That's not an opinion. The theist has not practiced a sufficient amount of skepticism.

If I am wrong, then prove it by presenting adequate evidence for the existence of your god. If you can't, then you have no reason to believe.

Plus there is much validity in evolution theory, however, much of it cannot be replicated using scientific method.
Even so, that does not make it false.
Glad we are back on topic.

We are telling you what our position is. What our interpretation of the word means. Pretty much every 'atheist' on the planet takes this same position yet you feel obligated to label what they think as something else. Given that your quote is the ultimate in irony.

Like I said take your pigeonholing label and try and learn a different perspective. Otherwise shove your strawman up your ass.

Hmm, so you are saying that not only am I full of shit, but so are Benjamin Franklin, Roger Bacon, and Plato, among other great thinkers?
Let's quickly examine your contentious and fallacious post, shall we?
I wasn't labeling anything or anyone.
I was quoting recognized authorities on the word "atheism".
More of your pseudo-intellectualism on display.
You are the guys who were making up your own definitions as if you were both authorities.
The record of posts will show and prove this.
Maybe you should go to work for Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or Wikipedia, since apparently you think you know more than they do.
:lol

Funny how Xmas dodged my post.

So where's that proof of God?

Again, one last time, you cannot arbitrarily set yourselves up as authorities on any subject where established authorities already exist.
Until you first understand this, then we can proceed from there in having a competent intelligent and fruitful debate.
If you can't, then there is no point in going any further.
You have to have a premiss that is backed by established authority.
Simple debate mechanics.
Until you start there, then there is no point in going further.
Get back to me when you are ready to begin at the beginning.
You cannot put the cart before the horse, either of you.
Good luck.
Oh, and enjoy your baiting.
:lol

I addressed you both in the plural, or did you conveniently miss that fact?
So, you are wrong again, I neither acknowledged nor dodged you.
If you had been paying attention you would have seen this.
Reread my last post before this one.
Then let me know.
We can go from there.
Or continue on the fruitless path you are already on and see what it brings you.
You might also bring a little humor to the table as well.
:lol

He's a coward wbk. He won't address anything head on and tries this dissembling nonsense. You are wasting your time.

Why?
Because I refuse to succumb to your feeble attempts to bait me into fruitless pissing contests?
It is ironic that what you accuse me of is the very tactic you are engaged in yourself.
And you want my participation?
Don't be silly.
I've done my time here making a fool of myself.
Now it's your turn.
You are doing an admiral job of it so far IMHO.
:lol

You addressed me but not the points I made in my post. Or did you conveniently miss that fact?

lol you addressed me but didn't acknowledge me. Cool contradiction.

Neat. So, where's that evidence for God?

So here is some more from Pages 8 & 9.

As you can see, you were only arguing Incidently with me, but mostly with the other two, while I was addressing "ALL" of you, "on both sides of the issue, but especially to you and Fuuzzy."

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 10:14 AM

Please just address my point.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 10:16 AM

Gossiping about me again? I wasn't even around yesterday yet here you are talking bad about me. What a backbiting scumbag you are.

That wasn't bad, nor addressed to you, but it was factual of my attempts to help you, and it was very complementary to you. :lol

How much you want to bet that given any amount of time he will never actually address the question, wbk's alternate definition or anything actually pertaining to the argument?

He's a coward after all.

And this is why. Because of your typical modus operandi above.

:lol xmas1997 calling others trolls yet almost single handedly ruining The Club with his seemingly 75-100 haiku formatted posts a day in almost every thread on the board. To top off his shitty posts he will shamelessly bump his own crap threads and threads he is in discussion (if you wanna call it that) in with periods to continue to keep his crap near the top of the forum.

Apparently you are in the minority in this "opinion".
In fact, you are the "only one" other than the ones who others have labeled as "obvious trolls", unless of course you are a troll too.
In either case this is why I usually disregard your posts as being insignificant, because for the most part, they are.
:lol

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 10:21 AM

Please just address my point.

Which point do you want me to address?
Pardon me for a bit of confusion, but you have jumped all around making all sorts of baseless allegations and very few valid points IMHO. :lol
So which point would you like me to address?
Brevity would be appreciated.
:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 10:23 AM

Which point do you want me to address?

You wrongfully accused me of making up my own definition of atheism. Admit that you were wrong.

Blake

11-15-2013, 10:25 AM

For everyone's apparent lazy edification, the thread had died 4 weeks ago, but was revived by CN 2 days ago, and these were the posts that were in process.

Wait, I'm not through.

So everyone else is just lazy.

Everyone.

Blake

11-15-2013, 10:27 AM

Brevity would be appreciated.
:lol

Yes it would, wordy hypocrite.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 10:27 AM

You wrongfully accused me of making up my own definition of atheism. Admit that you were wrong.

No, I was not wrong.
Happy now?

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 10:28 AM

Yes it would, wordy hypocrite.

What?
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, grumpy?
:lol

Blake

11-15-2013, 10:30 AM

What?
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, grumpy?
:lol

I'm in a good mood, Wordy.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 10:32 AM

No, I was not wrong.
Happy now?

Explain how you were not wrong.

I provided a definition of atheism.
You accused me of making it up.
I showed you that I didn't make it up.
Therefore, you were wrong.

leemajors

11-15-2013, 10:55 AM

That wasn't bad, nor addressed to you, but it was factual of my attempts to help you, and it was very complementary to you. :lol

And this is why. Because of your typical modus operandi above.

Apparently you are in the minority in this "opinion".
In fact, you are the "only one" other than the ones who others have labeled as "obvious trolls", unless of course you are a troll too.
In either case this is why I usually disregard your posts as being insignificant, because for the most part, they are.
:lol

No he is not.

mrsmaalox

11-15-2013, 10:57 AM

No he is not.

X 1000

SA210

11-15-2013, 11:01 AM

What?
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, grumpy?
:lol

:lol There isn't a day that goes by that Blake isn't angrier than the last. He'll come in and lie about it and attempt a quote change with the madrun emoticon to try to hide his rage, but it won't work lol

Clipper Nation

11-15-2013, 11:01 AM

SA210

11-15-2013, 11:03 AM

Don't forget sucking off SBM and SA210 all day while claiming to be "neutral" :lol

Hi ClitterNation, you've been running away from me ever since I asked you for proof of the claim you made about me.

BOO!

DJR210

11-15-2013, 11:06 AM

X 1000

No he is not.

Don't forget sucking off SBM and SA210 all day while claiming to be "neutral" :lol

Inb4 one of the super buddies comes in to accuse of being butthurt trolls.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 11:16 AM

Inb4 one of the super buddies comes in to accuse of being butthurt trolls.

Good that you know your place, now crawl troll!

:lmao

spurraider21

11-15-2013, 11:23 AM

If you are going to claim something exists, the burden of proof is on you. It's that simple. If I was to claim that a green ostrich exists, it would be moronic to say "well you can't prove that it doesn't exist so we are equally blind and let's agree to disagree. "

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 11:25 AM

Blake

11-15-2013, 11:26 AM

Bot no one here claimed it genius.

Some here have claimed the burden of proof works both ways, stupid.

Blake

11-15-2013, 11:29 AM

Hi ClitterNation, you've been running away from me ever since I asked you for proof of the claim you made about me.

BOO!

It won't matter if he does or doesn't. You have no face left here to save either way.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 11:32 AM

Some here have claimed the burden of proof works both ways, stupid.

You allowed other men to fuck your wife - you lost the right to consider anyone stupid or intelligent.

No one is making the claim god exists and the trolls are hot and bothered trying to pin that "making of a claim" by trolling and twisting and misapplying words to try to trap someone in a corner.

Show the exact point where someone made the claim "there is a god and I can prove it"

If not - then STFU - and go back to recruiting "bulls" to service your wife.

Blake

11-15-2013, 11:37 AM

You allowed other men to fuck your wife - you lost the right to consider anyone stupid or intelligent.

No one is making the claim god exists and the trolls are hot and bothered trying to pin that "making of a claim" by trolling and twisting and misapplying words to try to trap someone in a corner.

Show the exact point where someone made the claim "there is a god and I can prove it"

If not - then STFU - and go back to recruiting "bulls" to service your wife.

Oh look. A goal post move mixed with a personal shot. Who could have seen that coming.

you're an idiot.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 11:58 AM

Oh look. A goal post move mixed with a personal shot. Who could have seen that coming.

you're an idiot.

The personal shot was a return shot to your insult. I am not xmas and I give as much as I get -

you don't get to insult me and then receive a courteous or serious answer without a return insult. Ever.

I can do this all day. Give respect. Earn respect.

No one moved the goal posts except you trolls that tried very hard to "bait" someone to make a claim when none was made.

SA210

11-15-2013, 12:02 PM

Inb4 one of the super buddies comes in to accuse of being butthurt trolls.

Too late, I already said that truth a long time ago, butthurt troll. :lmao

SA210

11-15-2013, 12:03 PM

Cum on my wife's face, please.

Blake

11-15-2013, 12:10 PM

The personal shot was a return shot to your insult. I am not xmas and I give as much as I get -

you don't get to insult me and then receive a courteous or serious answer without a return insult. Ever.

I've never whined about insults. I'm just pointing yours out because you cry non stop about getting insulted.

It makes you a silly hypocrite, stupid.

I can do this all day. Give respect. Earn respect.

Nobody is asking for your respect, hypocrite.

No one moved the goal posts except you trolls that tried very hard to "bait" someone to make a claim when none was made.

You moved the goal posts, stupid.

You have absolutely no clue at all what a logical fallacy is.

DJR210

11-15-2013, 12:11 PM

Good that you know your place, now crawl troll!

:lmao

Too late, I already said that truth a long time ago, butthurt troll. :lmao

:lol couple of faggots

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 12:15 PM

I've never whined about insults. I'm just pointing yours out because you cry non stop about getting insulted.

It makes you a silly hypocrite, stupid.

Nobody is asking for your respect, hypocrite.

You moved the goal posts, stupid.

You have absolutely no clue at all what a logical fallacy is.

No one but the trolls are crying lately dumbshit.

You don't know wtf respect is - so deal with it - and figure it out - and get cucked in the meantime - same difference to me.

Also - this isn't jr college night class - so don't worry about logical fallacies and go fuck yourself.

SA210

11-15-2013, 12:41 PM

:lol me and troll blake are a couple of faggots, there, I said it

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 01:08 PM

:lmao

Blake

11-15-2013, 01:09 PM

No one but the trolls are crying lately dumbshit.

You don't know wtf respect is - so deal with it - and figure it out - and get cucked in the meantime - same difference to me.

Also - this isn't jr college night class - so don't worry about logical fallacies and go fuck yourself.

No, you cry incessantly.

If you want respect during a discussion or debate, you're going to need to learn what a logical fallacy is.

Until then, nobody will see you as anything more than a crazy ass talking clown.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 01:12 PM

No, you cry incessantly.

If you want respect during a discussion or debate, you're going to need to learn what a logical fallacy is.

Until then, nobody will see you as anything more than a crazy ass talking clown.

You think I want respect?

That is your problem. No one gives two shits what you think anyone "needs" to do. You shit your pants when invited to meet in person - so that "tough talk" is invalid.

Go find someone to fuck your wife - this is pretty much your ceiling anyway.

DJR210

11-15-2013, 01:15 PM

Intercom - **Code 2, Cellblock A!!, Code 2, Cellblock A!!**

*types away happily on ST*

SA210

11-15-2013, 01:18 PM

You think I want respect?

That is your problem. No one gives two shits what you think anyone "needs" to do. You shit your pants when invited to meet in person - so that "tough talk" is invalid.

Go find someone to fuck your wife - this is pretty much your ceiling anyway.

While she stares at the ceiling as the bull is giving it to her :lmao

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 01:20 PM

While she stares at the ceiling as the bull is giving it to her :lmao

:lmao

Blake

11-15-2013, 01:25 PM

You think I want respect?

Yes.

":cry give respect, get respect :cry"

Damn you're stupid.

SA210

11-15-2013, 01:26 PM

Damn I'm stupid.

Blake

11-15-2013, 01:26 PM

^i called that

SA210

11-15-2013, 01:32 PM

i called that bf of my wife..he said yes, he'll bang her some more Yay!

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 02:01 PM

DJR210

11-15-2013, 02:06 PM

I posted this hours ago and that coward xmas hasn't even attempted to refute the points I made in this post. So, when he told ClipperNation that he addressed every point I made, he lied. He didn't address the points I made when I originally made them, and he is refusing to address them now.

Let him get some sleep. He has posted periods and pseudo-intellect haiku format bullshit for the last 24 hours or so, non-stop. He finally ran out of gas, that's all.

spurraider21

11-15-2013, 02:23 PM

Bot no one here claimed it genius.

everybody in this thread that implies evolution is a complete farce is going with the "creator" model, which claims the existence of a deity. maybe not the judeo-christian god (though probably), but a god nonetheless.

the whole "we are all blind, nobody knows" crap also applies to the flying spaghetti monster. you can't claim something exists with no evidence or reason behind it, then put the burden of proof on the other side, which is exactly what that is doing.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 02:38 PM

everybody in this thread that implies evolution is a complete farce is going with the "creator" model, which claims the existence of a deity. maybe not the judeo-christian god (though probably), but a god nonetheless.

the whole "we are all blind, nobody knows" crap also applies to the flying spaghetti monster. you can't claim something exists with no evidence or reason behind it, then put the burden of proof on the other side, which is exactly what that is doing.

Post the exact post where someone made the claim.

Simply put.

spurraider21

11-15-2013, 03:54 PM

Post the exact post where someone made the claim.

Simply put.
You cannot have creation without creator. Playing a cute game is not worth my time.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 04:33 PM

You cannot have creation without creator. Playing a cute game is not worth my time.

I don't think you were talking about me - I never made a claim regarding "god" and I wasn't playing any games.

As far as the creation without the creator -

wrong person - there are trolls in here who would circle jerk around you for days with that claim.

I don't have the need to - irregardless - of my opinion on it.

DisAsTerBot

11-15-2013, 04:43 PM

irregardless :tu

spurraider21

11-15-2013, 04:52 PM

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 04:57 PM

All I know it's retarded to claim creation and not simultaneously claim the existence of a creator. It is equally retarded to put the burden of proof on the side not making a claim. If you cannot dispute these points, then do not respond to this

Still waiting for you to post where the claim was made.

If you can't - then don't respond to this post.

Also - you may possibly be right regarding the creation/creator thing - no one knows.

You may also be wrong and all this could have come from nothing - no one knows.

It could also be something completely different, unknown, mysterious, undefinable -

No one fuckin knows.

Trill Clinton

11-15-2013, 05:10 PM

I posted this hours ago and that coward xmas hasn't even attempted to refute the points I made in this post. So, when he told ClipperNation that he addressed every point I made, he lied. He didn't address the points I made when I originally made them, and he is refusing to address them now.

you take the whole atheist thing very serious, fam. as much as you complain about me spittin' hot fiya you are just as passionate or more about your atheism beliefs as i am for equality for minorities.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 05:14 PM

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 06:13 PM

you take the whole atheist thing very serious, fam. as much as you complain about me spittin' hot fiya you are just as passionate or more about your atheism beliefs as i am for equality for minorities.

Atheism is neither here nor there. I would take issue with this coward's behavior no matter what we were talking about.

SA210

11-15-2013, 06:17 PM

That's called butthurt ^^

Blake

11-15-2013, 06:19 PM

Still waiting for you to post where the claim was made.

It's the whole point of this thread, stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJpEQEs-6bs

Blake

11-15-2013, 06:20 PM

:madrun :madrun butthurt :madrun^^

SA210

11-15-2013, 06:20 PM

That's called extensive butthurt by a cuck ^^

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 06:21 PM

Atheism is neither here nor there. I would take issue with this coward's behavior no matter what we were talking about.

STFU asshole - cowardice is what you do all day - hide behind your troll buddies and try to attack posters who didn't do shit to you.

Xmas was man enough to speak to you with respect when you absolutely didn't deserve it.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 06:47 PM

Sorry guys, been busy preparing a birthday party and jam session.
Unlike some on here, who will undoubtedly complain and make idiotic accusations as to why I have been gone so long, I do have a much greater life outside of this tiny forum.

First, in no way did I ever claim that your definition of "atheism" was wrong, Woo. You will see shortly, again, what Indid say.

But before going through this, some guidelines need to be followed in order to do this correctly, and that is Parliamentary Procedure on the Rules of Debating:
"The 'burden of proof' in a debate relies not on who is 'Pro' (or 'Con'), but on the 'Instigator.'"
(Debate.org)

With that in mind, after a 4 week pause, 2 days ago the debate flared up again when CN made the newest post, with also Mouse, Spurraider, Rob, SBM, Blake, and you, Woo.

Your post below was in response to a post by SBM:

Yeah, because it probably wouldn't make any sense as a sentence. In regards to religious and spiritual beliefs, you are completely wrong. There either is a god(s) or there isn't. The numerous religions that man created throughout our history can't all be right, but they can definitely all be wrong.

So as you can see above in bold, you brought up the "God" issue first, and the underlined section is your "claim" that makes you the "Instigator" who the "burden of proof" falls upon.
Then my first post in 4 weeks in defense of the "mystery" issue follows below:

There are good and bad personalities on both sides of this debate.
But the ONLY truth that both agree on is that neither side can prove or disprove the other.
So, yes, he is correct, in this day and age it is a mystery, and that is WHY it is still called a mystery.

All of the people above had things to say, but your post followed below:

If nobody knows the truth, the reasonable thing would be to not believe until the truth comes out, right? Oh wait, "god is unknown and unknowable." Therefore, we should all just not believe, right?

In bold is where I state the obvious, but this is also where the "burden of proof" issue first surfaces:

Because you fail to understand simple logic does not give your argument any more validity or basis in reality.
Not trying to persuade you of anything. That is for you to do. And the only thing you will ultimately "believe" as being truth will be your own personal subjective experience. So sorry to inform you, but the theist has no more burden of proof than the atheist does.

More of the same about burden of proof, but nothing yet about the any definitions of "atheism":

In regards to the god claim, yes they absolutely do. The one making the claim provides the proof. It's that simple.

Still more, but since you made the claim first, you are still the "instigator" who is required to show the burden of proof regardless of semantics, pro or con:

Theists are no more putting forth the claim that there "is" a God, than atheists are claiming that there "isn't" one.
So the real truth is they neither have the burden of proof, or if you prefer, disproof.
Just because you say they do does not make it so. And the same is true that just because they may say it does, equally does not make it so.

More defining of burden of proof below, and that you are the "Instigator".
The "if" in bold makes the sentence a "supposition" and not a statement:

Burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemically dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
(Dictionary definition) (literary definition)

No where is it obligatory that either side has the burden of proof.
The only one claiming it is obligatory is "you".
And neither is it obligatory because one may have come about before the other. That too is solely because "you" say it is, and again because "you" say it does does not make it so.
And lastly, it is so the definition of atheism, and not because I say it is so, but rather that is the definition: "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (Dictionary)

Thus for the position of the atheist there is the belief that there is no God, whereas the position of the theist is that there is.
Neither has the burden of proof nor disproof.

Now if you choose to go against textbook definitions, that is your prerogative, and the province of your own personal experience, and then of course you enter the gray area that I spoke of that you also choose not to believe.

CN with the obvious mistaken assumption below:

Sorry, but theists are the ones putting forth the claim, therefore, theists have the burden of proof....

In between all of these were dictionary definitions of "atheism" that I gave you so that all of us would better understand what we all were also talking about, and because you kept quibbling over the semantics of the definition, besides "burden of proof".
The "if" in bold makes the sentence a "supposition" and not a statement:

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?
In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did.
I quoted it verbatim.
If you want to do it that way then your definition has no more validity than opinion, or as I said before, your own personal subjective experience.

Then you make an "implication" in bold of the definition of atheism. That is an implied or suggested "statement", but then you go on to negate it with another statement to the contrary:

1.) Words tend to be defined differently from source to source.
2.) A basic definition often doesn't capture the intricacies and baggage that comes with some terms. There are far better sources for the definition of atheism than dictionary.com.
I didn't establish myself as a source. Look at the second definition from your source. That is the definition I provided.

So there it all is in black and white, and if you need more proof, then you can go back this time and dig up the posts yourself.
Show us all where any of us accused you of defining atheism.
You did this yourself.
And accused me of it.
All I did was say "if" you go against recognized authorities on definitions, "then" you are making yourself the authority.
If I have to respond to this post I will get to it when I have time. The next two days, time is at a premium for me.
Have fun, and remember to laugh a lot.
:lol

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 06:50 PM

STFU asshole - cowardice is what you do all day - hide behind your troll buddies and try to attack posters who didn't do shit to you.

Xmas was man enough to speak to you with respect when you absolutely didn't deserve it.

xmas - woo isn't worth all this time and effort on your part - IMO -

the above quote - is ^ accurate for that little piece of shit ^

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 06:58 PM

xmas - woo isn't worth all this time and effort on your part - IMO -

the above quote - is ^ accurate for that little piece of shit ^

Thanks to you, and everyone else who patiently waited until I could squeeze in the time to make this rebuttal.
I actually wanted to do it in order to show Woo the difference between truth and baseless falsehood, he seems to have issues with both.
And the rest of you?
You know what you can do, ....... let's see, something about where the sun don't shine?
Keep laughing!:lol

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 07:03 PM

Thanks to you, and everyone else who patiently waited until I could squeeze in the time to make this rebuttal.
I actually wanted to do it in order to show Woo the difference between truth and baseless falsehood, he seems to have issues with both.
And the rest of you?
You know what you can do, ....... let's see, something about where the sun don't shine?
Keep laughing!:lol

:toast

SA210

11-15-2013, 07:11 PM

:lmao:lmao xmas comes in with the goods per the usual..which will cause more troll ass pain

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 07:12 PM

Woo is a little coward and will not ever admit he was hosed by the gentleman!

:lmao

SA210

11-15-2013, 07:13 PM

Woo is a little coward and will not ever admit he was hosed by the gentleman!

:lmao

Is that what they fear..anything resembling a gentleman? Must suck to be them having no life :lol

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 07:19 PM

Is that what they fear..anything resembling a gentleman? Must suck to be them having no life :lol

Well, they all tried to corner xmas - by using dishonest means - applying something false and attributing it to xmas - then the other trolls confirmed it by circle jerking around this false premise -

but xmas still made them look stupid.

They gonna be butthurt again!

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 07:32 PM

Well, they all tried to corner xmas - by using dishonest means - applying something false and attributing it to xmas - then the other trolls confirmed it by circle jerking around this false premise -

but xmas still made them look stupid.

They gonna be butthurt again!

They may be even scrounging around Pages 6 & 7 as we speak where all this came from searching for any tidbit of "dirt" they can find.
The atheism posts are on those pages too, but they weren't worth quoting since none made any accusations.
The irony is the major atheist accusation was made by Woo himself, and that one I quoted.
And nowhere do any of us profess a belief in God either.
So all goes well that ends well.
Laugh a bunch on me.
It still remains for Woo to give everyone the "burden of proof" since he is the "Instigator"
I bet he deflects.
:lol

SA210

11-15-2013, 07:35 PM

They may be even scrounging around Pages 6 & 7 as we speak where all this came from searching for any tidbit of "dirt" they can find.
The atheism posts are on those pages too, but they weren't worth quoting since none made any accusations.
The irony is the major atheist accusation was made by Woo himself, and that one I quoted.
And nowhere do any of us profess a belief in God either.
So all goes well that ends well.
Laugh a bunch on me. :lol

A troll is a troll is a troll. They are only interested in doing troll hoodrat things. :lol

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 07:37 PM

A troll is a troll is a troll. They are only interested in doing troll hoodrat things. :lol

Woo, you are the "Instigator", so where is your burden of proof?
:lol

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 07:39 PM

Where is that pussy woo - he called you out for pages and now the little bitch is afraid to come and face the music like a man -

then he will deny he was wrong....tap dance...deny...tap dance...insult....tap dance...

SA210

11-15-2013, 07:46 PM

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 07:52 PM

Look at xmas's cheerleaders go!

Anyway,

All I did was say "if" you go against recognized authorities on definitions, "then" you are making yourself the authority.

Here's part of that quote again:

I just gave you textbook definition, and two of them to boot, yet you still go against normal textbook authority?
In that case you are establishing yourself as authority rather than accepted definition. Look it up if you don't believe me, I did..

Did I go against textbook authority (lol at dictionary.com being an established authority on what atheism is), or did I not? If I didn't, why even bring up me making myself an authority if I did nothing of the sort?

Your backtracking is not making any sense. "I didn't say you DID! I only said if you did!"

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 07:55 PM

Where is that pussy woo - he called you out for pages and now the little bitch is afraid to come and face the music like a man -

Oh, so it's okay for him to still reply without addressing my posts for half the day, but it's not okay for me to be away for SpursTalk for an hour?

then he will deny he was wrong

How was I wrong, cheerleader?

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 08:02 PM

Look at xmas's cheerleaders go!

Anyway,

Here's part of that quote again:

Did I go against textbook authority (lol at dictionary.com being an established authority on what atheism is), or did I not? If I didn't, why even bring up me making myself an authority if I did nothing of the sort?

Your backtracking is not making any sense. "I didn't say you DID! I only said if you did!"

That won't fly.
Take all the time you want, you'll need it.
The "IF" and "THEN" is still there, it's a common debate strategy, used all the time if you've ever been in any debates.
Apparently you've never been in any debates back in grade school.
That is your problem.
My guess is since you are the Instigator, you will not show anyone the proof, since the burden is on you, as it has always been since Page 6.
Good luck, and keep on laughing.:lol

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:05 PM

The "IF" and "THEN" is still there, it's a common debate strategy, used all the time if you've ever been in any debates.

Did I go against textbook authority or did I not? If I didn't, why did you ask me if I was going against textbook authority? Why did you bring up textbook authority in the first place if what I posted didn't contradict it?

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 08:05 PM

That won't fly.
Take all the time you want, you'll need it.
The "IF" and "THEN" is still there, it's a common debate strategy, used all the time if you've ever been in any debates.
Apparently you've never been in any debates back in grade school.
That is your problem.
My guess is since you are the Instigator, you will not show anyone the proof, since the burden is on you, as it has always been since Page 6.
Good luck, and keep on laughing.:lol

Well, there it is - troll.

mouse

11-15-2013, 08:06 PM

leemajors

11-15-2013, 08:08 PM

You'd think a person who has engaged in debates since elementary school could write a coherent sentence.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 08:09 PM

silverblk mystix, SA210, and xmas1997 seem to be always pulling out the smack bat on Woo,Blake and RandomLie in epic fashion lately.

My question who is the conductor of this TRoll train and what is the preferred name for your posse?

lol

just bringing back a little bit of parity to this place - like there used to be -

for awhile the trolls heavily ran shit and it just became an asshole-fest -against outnumbered decent posters -

throwing it back in their face has been fun!

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 08:12 PM

silverblk mystix, SA210, and xmas1997 seem to be always pulling out the smack bat on Woo,Blake and RandomLie in epic fashion lately.

My question who is the conductor of this TRoll train and what is the preferred name for your posse?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mae927SNFt1rrx7h7o1_500.gif

Not me. I'm just after a little info, and some laughter, and posting a little.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:13 PM

Well, there it is - troll. There's what? His explanation makes no sense. I post a definition of atheism that doesn't "go against textbook authority," according to that "textbook authority." If I didn't go against "textbook authority," why did he ask me if I was going against it? He's backpedaling.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 08:13 PM

rofl troll train-

I recognize a few of those!!!!!

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 08:15 PM

There's what? His explanation makes no sense. I post a definition of atheism that doesn't "go against textbook authority," according to that "textbook authority." If I didn't go against "textbook authority," why did he ask me if I was going against it? He's backpedaling.

Why don't you post the exact post where a claim was made regarding god?

Because you pulled it outta your ass and tried to attribute it to xmas - you deceiving little prick - everything else that followed was garbage because you never posted the exact post where the claim was made.

So you can STFU troll.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:19 PM

Why don't you post the exact post where a claim was made regarding god?

Because you pulled it outta your ass and tried to attribute it to xmas - you deceiving little prick - everything else that followed was garbage because you never posted the exact post where the claim was made.

So you can STFU troll.

Not only is this a complete dodge, this doesn't even make any sense.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 08:27 PM

Not only is this a complete dodge, this doesn't even make any sense.

So you never had a post of anyone making a claim.

Got it.

mouse

11-15-2013, 08:41 PM

rofl troll train-

I recognize a few of those!!!!!

back in the 90s pulling a TRoll train was part of our job at RTT (Rack The TRolls) and TRolls.net

the other THE

http://www.thetrolls.net/phpbb/

http://www.thetrolls.net/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=2

T1B

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37820&p=718820&hilit=remember+mouse#p718820

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/search.php?keywords=trolls&sid=b74eca955c9d4dc32fd527aa0f7b9dd0

Jim Romes Smack chat

http://web.archive.org/web/19970226193902/www.jimrome.com/smakchat/board.shtml

http://web.archive.org/web/20000511202513/http://chat.jimrome.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Smack&number=10&DaysPrune=10&LastLogin=

There was another forum the Smack bat haven't seen it.

Back in the 90s at Jim Romes smack chat forum they had a topic called "pile on" it later became "say something about the poster above you" and other names. I get a kick out of someone lecturing me on what the proper way to name the topic when they was probably in diapers or elementary school back in 1996 :lmao

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 08:43 PM

So you never had a post of anyone making a claim.

Got it.

Making a claim about what? What are you talking about?

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 09:01 PM

In this post, xmas outright accuses me of making up the definition.

And if you want to make up your own dictionary definitions using such intangibles as "intricacies" and "baggage", then there is no common ground in fact, rather it is of your own fancy. No one can debate your fancy.

"B-bu-but he said if I wanted to make up my own definitions, not that I did!"

If you want to play that game, fine, I will. xmas never technically accused me of making up definitions, did he?

Show us all where any of us accused you of defining atheism.

That's a direct challenge. Okay, I accept that challenge.

Here you go:

And furthermore you create your own unverifiable definitions to suit your own unverifiable purposes.

Oh, it turns out he did claim that I created the definition I posted. So

No more hiding, xmas.
In before, "I only said that you create your own unverifiable definitions, I never said that you created a definition of 'atheism'!" You can't weasel out of this one on a technicality.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:14 PM

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:15 PM

In this post, xmas outright accuses me of making up the definition.

"B-bu-but he said if I wanted to make up my own definitions, not that I did!"

If you want to play that game, fine, I will. xmas never technically accused me of making up definitions, did he?

That's a direct challenge. Okay, I accept that challenge.

Here you go:

Oh, it turns out he did claim that I created the definition I posted. So

No more hiding, xmas.
In before, "I only said that you create your own unverifiable definitions, I never said that you created a definition of 'atheism'!" You can't weasel out of this one on a technicality.

I predict there will be some weasel attempts

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:16 PM

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:16 PM

I predict there will be some weasel attempts

And you were right.
But unfortunately for you, it was Woo doing the weaseling.
:lol

mouse

11-15-2013, 09:16 PM

I didn't find all these links just to have my post buried on page 16

back in the 90s pulling a TRoll train was part of our job at RTT (Rack The TRolls) and TRolls.net

the other THE

http://www.thetrolls.net/phpbb/

http://www.thetrolls.net/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=2

T1B

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37820&p=718820&hilit=remember+mouse#p718820

http://www.theoneboard.com/board/search.php?keywords=trolls&sid=b74eca955c9d4dc32fd527aa0f7b9dd0

Jim Romes Smack chat

http://web.archive.org/web/19970226193902/www.jimrome.com/smakchat/board.shtml

http://web.archive.org/web/20000511202513/http://chat.jimrome.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Smack&number=10&DaysPrune=10&LastLogin=

There was another forum the Smack bat haven't seen it.

Back in the 90s at Jim Romes smack chat forum they had a topic called "pile on" it later became "say something about the poster above you" and other names. I get a kick out of someone lecturing me on what the proper way to name the topic when they was probably in diapers or elementary school back in 1996 :lmao

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:18 PM

Not only is this a complete dodge, this doesn't even make any sense.

this isn't jr college night class - so don't worry about logical fallacies and go fuck yourself.

Actual post. ^

Lolololol.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:18 PM

Sorry Mouse, I am extremely busy, but I will check them out.

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:19 PM

I didn't find all these links just to have my post buried on page 16

mouse wants some attention.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 09:19 PM

I knew you would try to weasel out of it.
But it still won't fly.
You can't twist them to suit your own ends this time.
My posts stand on their own merit.
They say exactly what I want them to say.
Semantics won't help you.
The only fool you have made is yourself.
And the more you quote me, the more foolish you will look.
Try some laughter next time.
It will get you a lot farther.
:lol

Cool non-response. You asked me to show you where you, or anybody else, accused me of making up my own definition. I did.

If I am wrong, explain why. Don't quote people who have nothing to do with this.

Explain the last quote of yours in my previous post.

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:20 PM

And you were right.
But unfortunately for you, it was Woo doing the weaseling.
:lol

you and I disagree on that.

It also wouldn't be unfortunate for me either way.

xmas1997

11-15-2013, 09:26 PM

you and I disagree on that.

It also wouldn't be unfortunate for me either way.

Then you can't read.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 09:30 PM

Still no explanation.

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:35 PM

Then you can't read.

I think the popular opinion is that it's you with the reading comprehension problems.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 09:39 PM

Called it.

Woo gets destroyed and he weasels and tap dances and other idiots still try to help him by posting garbage and insults.

It is what it is.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 09:40 PM

I didn't find all these links just to have my post buried on page 16

I will definitely be checking on those!

Thanks!

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 09:41 PM

silverblk mystix, SA210, and xmas1997 seem to be always pulling out the smack bat on Woo,Blake and RandomLie in epic fashion lately.

My question who is the conductor of this TRoll train and what is the preferred name for your posse?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mae927SNFt1rrx7h7o1_500.gif

The TROLLL TRAIIINNNNNN!!!!!!!

:lmao:lmao

Blake

11-15-2013, 09:45 PM

Called it.

Woo gets destroyed and he weasels and tap dances and other idiots still try to help him by posting garbage and insults.

It is what it is.

You're too unintelligent to know the score.

Woo Bum-kon

11-15-2013, 09:50 PM

Okay, now sbm is accusing me of being wrong still. Next comes SA210. Then mouse.

Don't expect an explanation from any of them about why. I'm just wrong. I take time to make claims that I back with evidence, and all I get is, "You're wrong." Do I get an explanation? Nope.

silverblk mystix

11-15-2013, 10:07 PM

You're too unintelligent to know the score.

Unintelligence is a guy who allows other men to fuck his wife and then starts a thread asking for advice.