We evolved from a great ape, now what?

[xmas1997]

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.

[Woo Bum-kon]

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.

[xmas1997]

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]

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.

yours isn't?

[Woo Bum-kon]

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]

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.

[xmas1997]

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]

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]

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]

[DJR210]

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 ty 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]

Dumb 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-n...ananas-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/show...25#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.

"some scientists were wrong about something, therefore science in general is wrong"
"scientists can't make mistakes ever"
"paleontologists discovered fossils of a new species of dinosaur, therefore science was wrong about dinosaurs"
"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 re logic. The constant use of "science" as some kind of person rather than a system is just the icing on the top.

Subs ute the word "scientist" with

jeebo , 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]

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]

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

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 " gots" 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. 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' re ed logic.

[Woo Bum-kon]

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

Address the points I made or shut up.

[xmas1997]

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]

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.

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]

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 . 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.

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.



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...ef%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?

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.

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.






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

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

So make your case, if you will.

[xmas1997]

I didn't obfuscate , 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 , 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.

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.

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.

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 suc b 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.

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]

Please just address my point.

[xmas1997]

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

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.

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 ty 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.

[xmas1997]

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.
So which point would you like me to address?
Brevity would be appreciated.

[Woo Bum-kon]

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]

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]

Brevity would be appreciated.

Yes it would, wordy hypocrite.