Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#43 Sep 9, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And what specifically is your argument against that?
Again, let's review.
Here is the DICTIONARY definition:
"a being or object BELIEVED to have more than natural attributes and
Man or sh*t up shovelhead.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#44 Sep 9, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
See, Skippy, the problem here is that you are blinded by your own stupidity.
You're an ignorant egotistical retard who doesn't know how to use a f*cking dictionary and didn't know what the burden of proof was.

You didn't realise that the science verification part comes first, before something becomes real or true.

You're quoted word ofr word in this thread and your stupidity is here for all to see.

On top of that you accuse me of denying the moon landings and egyptions, like a little tw*t.

You're already made an embarassement of yourself as each and every atheists poster has smacked you down for your utter stupidity in this regard.

Do yourself and favour and f*ck off back to your troll hiole whence you came, you ridiculous excuse for a person.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#45 Sep 9, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Man or sh*t up shovelhead.
That's not a counter argument. That's just you flailing.

See, what's happening here Skippy is that you created this thread thinking that you could use it to insult me. You thought you would be able to make fun of the logic in my argument.

I'm giving you a free shot. Go for it.

I explained the definition. I explained how definitions work. I explained my argument.

Here it is again -
"I agree with the dictionary definition of a god."

Show me the error. Show me the failure in logic.

You created an ENTIRE thread to try and do just that. Go for it.

What's wrong with agreeing with the dictionary definition of a word?

Got ANYTHING?

No? didn't think so

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#46 Sep 9, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an ignorant egotistical retard who doesn't know how to use a f*cking dictionary and didn't know what the burden of proof was.
You didn't realise that the science verification part comes first, before something becomes real or true.
Wow, you are wrong on so many counts.

First of all, science doesn't have a damn thing to do with what is "true" or "not true". Science deals in facts.

Truths are SUBJECTIVE, facts are OBJECTIVE.

No amount of verification or falsification is going to change a "truth". All they are going to do is expose the _facts_.

Second, you _STILL_ don't understand that you are making the claim that requires proof. Your claim was that it was _impossible_ for a certain thing to exist.

This means that not only does it not exist now, it didn't exist in the past and will NEVER exist in the future under any circumstances.

That's a HUGE claim. And, to support it, you provided exactly....

nothing.

Not a damn thing.

You demanded that WE provide YOU with proof that you were wrong about future evidence.

I don't need to meet a burden of proof to say that science does not rule something out simply because there is no evidence for or against it. Science just says that something is unlikely to be true.

Science doesn't assume it has ALL the future data. You do.

That's why you aren't talking about science.
You're quoted word ofr word in this thread and your stupidity is here for all to see.
Yes, I've even quoted myself.

I agree with the dictionary. You disagree. You've presented no argument to support your claim, nor have you demonstrated any reason why mine should be rejected.

Let everyone see it. I'm totally cool with that.
On top of that you accuse me of denying the moon landings and egyptions, like a little tw*t.
Not so much "accuse" as "remind you".

You claimed that I made up the fact that NASA put people on the moon. That happened. People have reposted it multiple times.

You could have admitted you were mistaken. You didn't.

Live with it.
Do yourself and favour and f*ck off back to your troll hiole whence you came, you ridiculous excuse for a person.
LOL. Skippy, you created an ENTIRE thread to talk about me and now you are so worked up you want me to leave the thread about me?

Seriously. Did you even go outside today?

I am the center of your Universe. You live only to post about me, to me, for me. I'm so important to you that you REPOST me.

I own you, bitch.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#47 Sep 9, 2012
So if a schizophrenic believes he is the reincarnation of Napoleon and convinces some people he really is then he has met the burden of proof that he is Napoleon?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#48 Sep 10, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
So if a schizophrenic believes he is the reincarnation of Napoleon and convinces some people he really is then he has met the burden of proof that he is Napoleon?
Why is this SO HARD for you guys to understand?

Belief is not a factor in determining if someone is "Napoleon". It doesn't matter how many people believe it, Napoleon has specific DNA, lived at a specific time, looked a specific way.

If a 6'2" Black woman from Chicago thinks that she's the historical Napoleon, she's wrong.

You don't define "Napoleon" by belief.

You DO define "godhood" by belief. If people worship that same woman and believe she has unnatural abilities, then she is a god.

That's because the DEFINITION of a god is "someone who people believe has magical powers and requires worship".

The definition of Napoleon is not "someone who people believe is Napoleon".

See the difference?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#49 Sep 10, 2012
Nobody is arguing with you. We're TELLING you that you're wrong and TELLING you to f*ck off and stop embarrassing yourself you stupid troll.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#50 Sep 10, 2012
There is nothing hard about your childish argument. You misunderstood me do allow me to help you catch up. I didn't say a resurrected Napoleon which would have his DNA but a reincarnated one meanin his soul or spirit went into this person. Now if that person believes it and gets others to believe it as well has that person met the burden of proof that they are indeed Napoleon reincarnated?

Actually your silly argument is nothing more than the same argument from miracle on 34th street. Well the remake version anyways. Yes right when Santa is going to lose his case she gives the judge a one dollar bill with in God we trust underlined. The judge says that people believe in God without proof but simply on faith just as children believe in Santa without proof and on faith and Santa goes free! Lol!

Showing that people believe in something doesn't make it accurate. If you wish to use this argument you have to accept UFOs with little gray men, Bigfoot, ghosts, loch ness monster, elves, mermaids, demons, spirit bears, elvis is still alive, hexes, magic spells and the list goes on and on. All of these things people believe shall we accept them as real because people believe?

Can you 100% prove any of these false?

See how fast your childish miracle on 34th street argument fails?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is this SO HARD for you guys to understand?
Belief is not a factor in determining if someone is "Napoleon". It doesn't matter how many people believe it, Napoleon has specific DNA, lived at a specific time, looked a specific way.
If a 6'2" Black woman from Chicago thinks that she's the historical Napoleon, she's wrong.
You don't define "Napoleon" by belief.
You DO define "godhood" by belief. If people worship that same woman and believe she has unnatural abilities, then she is a god.
That's because the DEFINITION of a god is "someone who people believe has magical powers and requires worship".
The definition of Napoleon is not "someone who people believe is Napoleon".
See the difference?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#51 Sep 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
Nobody is arguing with you. We're TELLING you that you're wrong and TELLING you to f*ck off and stop embarrassing yourself you stupid troll.
Unfortunately, that's ALL you are doing. You have nothing to back up your claim. You just keep shouting "I'm right! You're wrong!"

Then when I ask for evidence, you run off and create a thread about how awesome I am.

Face it, Skippy. I am the center of your Universe. I own you, bitch.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#52 Sep 10, 2012
Actually your silly argument is nothing more than the same argument from miracle on 34th street.... The judge says that people believe in God without proof but simply on faith just as children believe in Santa without proof and on faith and Santa goes free! Lol!
Actually, my argument isn't that.

I don't give a crap about faith or even evidence.

My argument is EXTREMELY simple.

A "god" is something that is believed by people to have supernatural powers and is worshiped as such.

That's the definition of the word.

That's why we can make a list of gods and that list would include:
Thor, Vishnu, Jesus, Ra, Coyote, the Sun, the Moon, etc.

No person who believes Jesus is a god ALSO believes that Thor is a god. No person who believed Thor was a god ALSO believed that Coyote was a god.

Most of the religions are mutually exclusive.

However, that doesn't stop us as outside individuals from evaluating that religion and saying: "Okay, in this religion, this guy Jesus is the god. In that religion over there, Thor is the god. In Hawaii, this volcano is the god."

The label god is applied to each of those things because of the role those things serve in that religion.

The label doesn't make any one of those things better or worse than any other. It doesn't suddenly make the volcano sentient.

It's just a label so that people can evaluate the pieces of the various religions.

And for some reason, you are arguing that the label is incorrect by suggesting that Napoleon was reincarnated.

I don't get it.
Showing that people believe in something doesn't make it accurate.
Accuracy is irrelevant. If I give you a list of 10 gods, NECESSARILY 9 of them MUST be false (in reality ALL 10 will be). Still, if I present you with that list and say "What is this a list of?", you'll respond: "Oh, those are gods".
If you wish to use this argument you have to accept UFOs with little gray men, Bigfoot, ghosts, loch ness monster
Can you 100% prove any of these false?
Sigh.

Again, you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding the argument.

This is not about "proof".

This is about the DEFINITION of the label.

Why is Thor a "god"? Why is Vishnu a "god"? Why is Ra a "god"? Why is Pele a "god"?

What do all these "gods" have in common? They are all at the center of a religion in which people believe them to have special powers and require worship.

Do people believe that bigfoot has special powers and requires worship? No. Therefore bigfoot is not a god.

Do people believe that chairs have special powers and require worship? No. Therefore chairs are not a god.

Do people believe that Jesus has special powers and requires worship? Yes. Therefore Jesus was a god.

Do people believe that Pharaohs had special powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore Pharaohs were gods.

Did Pharaohs ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.
Did Thor ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.

The definition isn't "someone that ACTUALLY has powers". The definition is "someone that people BELIEVE has powers".

The BELIEF of the people is what makes that person/thing a "god".

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#53 Sep 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, my argument isn't that.
I don't give a crap about faith or even evidence.
My argument is EXTREMELY simple.
A "god" is something that is believed by people to have supernatural powers and is worshiped as such.
That's the definition of the word.
That's why we can make a list of gods and that list would include:
Thor, Vishnu, Jesus, Ra, Coyote, the Sun, the Moon, etc.
No person who believes Jesus is a god ALSO believes that Thor is a god. No person who believed Thor was a god ALSO believed that Coyote was a god.
Most of the religions are mutually exclusive.
However, that doesn't stop us as outside individuals from evaluating that religion and saying: "Okay, in this religion, this guy Jesus is the god. In that religion over there, Thor is the god. In Hawaii, this volcano is the god."
The label god is applied to each of those things because of the role those things serve in that religion.
The label doesn't make any one of those things better or worse than any other. It doesn't suddenly make the volcano sentient.
It's just a label so that people can evaluate the pieces of the various religions.
And for some reason, you are arguing that the label is incorrect by suggesting that Napoleon was reincarnated.
I don't get it.
<quoted text>
Accuracy is irrelevant. If I give you a list of 10 gods, NECESSARILY 9 of them MUST be false (in reality ALL 10 will be). Still, if I present you with that list and say "What is this a list of?", you'll respond: "Oh, those are gods".
<quoted text>
Sigh.
Again, you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding the argument.
This is not about "proof".
This is about the DEFINITION of the label.
Why is Thor a "god"? Why is Vishnu a "god"? Why is Ra a "god"? Why is Pele a "god"?
What do all these "gods" have in common? They are all at the center of a religion in which people believe them to have special powers and require worship.
Do people believe that bigfoot has special powers and requires worship? No. Therefore bigfoot is not a god.
Do people believe that chairs have special powers and require worship? No. Therefore chairs are not a god.
Do people believe that Jesus has special powers and requires worship? Yes. Therefore Jesus was a god.
Do people believe that Pharaohs had special powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore Pharaohs were gods.
Did Pharaohs ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.
Did Thor ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.
The definition isn't "someone that ACTUALLY has powers". The definition is "someone that people BELIEVE has powers".
The BELIEF of the people is what makes that person/thing a "god".
Meltdown from the nutter.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#54 Sep 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, my argument isn't that.
I don't give a crap about faith or even evidence.
My argument is EXTREMELY simple.
A "god" is something that is believed by people to have supernatural powers and is worshiped as such.
That's the definition of the word.
That's why we can make a list of gods and that list would include:
Thor, Vishnu, Jesus, Ra, Coyote, the Sun, the Moon, etc.
No person who believes Jesus is a god ALSO believes that Thor is a god. No person who believed Thor was a god ALSO believed that Coyote was a god.
Most of the religions are mutually exclusive.
However, that doesn't stop us as outside individuals from evaluating that religion and saying: "Okay, in this religion, this guy Jesus is the god. In that religion over there, Thor is the god. In Hawaii, this volcano is the god."
The label god is applied to each of those things because of the role those things serve in that religion.
The label doesn't make any one of those things better or worse than any other. It doesn't suddenly make the volcano sentient.
It's just a label so that people can evaluate the pieces of the various religions.
And for some reason, you are arguing that the label is incorrect by suggesting that Napoleon was reincarnated.
I don't get it.
<quoted text>
Accuracy is irrelevant. If I give you a list of 10 gods, NECESSARILY 9 of them MUST be false (in reality ALL 10 will be). Still, if I present you with that list and say "What is this a list of?", you'll respond: "Oh, those are gods".
<quoted text>
Sigh.
Again, you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding the argument.
This is not about "proof".
This is about the DEFINITION of the label.
Why is Thor a "god"? Why is Vishnu a "god"? Why is Ra a "god"? Why is Pele a "god"?
What do all these "gods" have in common? They are all at the center of a religion in which people believe them to have special powers and require worship.
Do people believe that bigfoot has special powers and requires worship? No. Therefore bigfoot is not a god.
Do people believe that chairs have special powers and require worship? No. Therefore chairs are not a god.
Do people believe that Jesus has special powers and requires worship? Yes. Therefore Jesus was a god.
Do people believe that Pharaohs had special powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore Pharaohs were gods.
Did Pharaohs ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.
Did Thor ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.
The definition isn't "someone that ACTUALLY has powers". The definition is "someone that people BELIEVE has powers".
The BELIEF of the people is what makes that person/thing a "god".
I can't find a darn thing in that lot with which I could disagree.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#55 Sep 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it, Skippy. I am the center of your Universe. I own you, bitch.
Says the idiot who fails at logic and its proven in this thread.

Every single atheist has beaten your lying crap to a pulp.

You belong on the troll shelf along with Educated Tw*t, Grameen Ferox, Buck Crick, lol, The Dude.

I have no doubt you'll f*ck off like the rest of them soon enough.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#56 Sep 10, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I can't find a darn thing in that lot with which I could disagree.
that's because you actually read it :)

Skippy hasn't actually read anything I've posted.

That was the problem in the first place. that's why he went off on NASA faking the moon landing, because he didn't read what was written.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#57 Sep 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the idiot who fails at logic and its proven in this thread.
Every single atheist has beaten your lying crap to a pulp.
You belong on the troll shelf along with Educated Tw*t, Grameen Ferox, Buck Crick, lol, The Dude.
I have no doubt you'll f*ck off like the rest of them soon enough.
Yawn.

I've given you ample opportunity to point out EXACTLY what is wrong with what I'm saying, you've failed to do so. Repeatedly.

Let's try this again, see if you can come up with something.

The word "god" is a label which means "someone/something which is believed to have supernatural powers and requires worship."

That's why Thor, a fictional character at the center of the Norse religion is a "god". That's why Jesus, a fictional character at the center of the Christian religion is a "god". That's why Vishnu, a fictional character at the center of the Hindu religion is a "god".

The fact that none of these things ACTUALLY exist doesn't effect that we can use a LABEL to group them as "gods" the same way that none of the X-MEN actual exist and we can still call them "superheroes" or "mutants" or "members of the Marvel Universe", etc.

Something does not need to be real to have a label.

However, just because some of the things that have a label are not real does not mean that all things which have the label are not real.

So, "Thor" is a god, but he's not an individual who really exists. The moon is a god, but it is a physically real object, just not a sentient one. Ramses was a god, was a real person, just didn't have any ACTUAL powers.

All still "gods", but all of them were worshiped by people.

Now, if you can present a DIFFERENT definition for "god" which equally applies to all the things we currently label as "gods", then I'd be happy to entertain it.

But, we both know you won't because that would require you to actually go and get a dictionary and look something up.

So, why don't you just post some more curse words and then go jerk off while you fantasize about me because let's face it - I am the MOST IMPORTANT person in your life.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#58 Sep 10, 2012
Nuggin
Actually, my argument isn't that. I don't give a crap about faith or even evidence.
Obviously Lulz! But you do give a crap about belief or faith so already you are contradicting yourself.

My argument is EXTREMELY simple.
A "god" is something that is believed by people to have supernatural powers and is worshiped as such would include:Thor, Jesus ect.
No person who believes Jesus is a god ALSO believes that Thor is a god.

You have proof of that? I know some People from the Norse wedding I attended so you are wrong.

No person who believed Thor was a god ALSO believed that Coyote was a god.
Wrong. Assumption.

Most of the religions are mutually exclusive.

Messianic Jews.

However, that doesn't stop us as outside individuals from evaluating that religion and saying: "Okay, in this religion, this guy Jesus is the god.
The label god is applied to each of those things because of the role those things serve in that religion. It's just a label so that people can evaluate the pieces of the various religions.

Zzzzz in other words their beliefs or faith.

And for some reason, you are arguing that the label is incorrect by suggesting that Napoleon was reincarnated.

You said if people believe there is a god then there is a god. So again stop ducking my example and answer it. If someone says they believe they are the reincarnated Napoleon and get others to believe it as well does that mean the person is in fact the reincarnated Napoleon? Yes or no?

Accuracy is irrelevant.
With you obviously.

If I give you a list of 10 gods, NECESSARILY 9 of them MUST be false (in reality ALL 10 will be). Still, if I present you with that list and say "What is this a list of?", you'll respond: "Oh, those are gods".

Why must 9 be false? The growing pagan community would disagree. In reality all 10 are false? You just shot your own argument in the face. If you showed me that list I would chuckle and say fictional characters. See that is the big problem with you, you assume to much.

Again, you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding the argument.
This is not about "proof".

Painfully obvious.

This is about the DEFINITION of the label.
Why is Thor a "god"? Why is Vishnu a "god"? Why is Ra a "god"?

They were made up along with Yahweh and Jesus.

They are all at the center of a religion in which people believe them to have special powers and require worship.

Lmfao the wrong meter just broke!

Do people believe that bigfoot has special powers and requires worship? No. Therefore bigfoot is not a god.

Did I say Bigfoot was a god? No but people believe thy exist and by your argument they must exist. Also some Indian tribes have turned Bigfoot into a spirit and do acts of worship accordingly.

Do people believe that chairs have special powers and require worship? No. Therefore chairs are not a god.

Chairs exist.

Do people believe that Jesus has special powers and requires worship? Yes. Therefore Jesus was a god.
Do people believe that Pharaohs had special powers and required worship? Yes. Therefore Pharaohs were gods.
Did Pharaohs ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.
Did Thor ACTUALLY have powers? No. Doesn't matter.

Did Jesus Actually have special powers? No.
Why did you leave that one out??

The definition isn't "someone that ACTUALLY has powers". The definition is "someone that people BELIEVE has powers".
The BELIEF of the people is what makes that person/thing a "god".

Same belief that makes Santa is real qnd has powers like in miracle on 34th street.
See belief does not give a shred of proof for a god as you claim it does.
As Carlin would say, I see what you are saying but you're still full of sht.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#59 Sep 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
that's because you actually read it :)
Skippy hasn't actually read anything I've posted.
That was the problem in the first place. that's why he went off on NASA faking the moon landing, because he didn't read what was written.
So it begins to seem more and more likely that my assumption might have been correct - this may be a case of simple mutual misunderstanding.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#61 Sep 10, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn.
I've given you ample opportunity to point out EXACTLY what is wrong with what I'm saying, you've failed to do so.
Start at the beginning of this thread and work your way down.

Not very good at looking up stuff are you?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#62 Sep 10, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
No person who believes Jesus is a god ALSO believes that Thor is a god.
You have proof of that? I know some People from the Norse wedding I attended so you are wrong.
Have proof of what? That Christians don't also believe in Thor? It's part of the entire "no other gods before me" thing.
No person who believed Thor was a god ALSO believed that Coyote was a god.
Wrong. Assumption.
Actually, the people who worshiped Thor did manage to make contact with Native Americans, but not with Native Americans from the Southwest.
Most of the religions are mutually exclusive.
Messianic Jews.
Yes, that is an excellent example. Messianic Jews do not believe that the Hindu gods were real. Nor do they accept the Norse, Greek, Roman, Native American, African, etc gods.
The label god is applied to each of those things because of the role those things serve in that religion. It's just a label so that people can evaluate the pieces of the various religions.
Zzzzz in other words their beliefs or faith.
Yes. It is, by definition, a label of the individual or object at the center of their beliefs or faith.
You said if people believe there is a god then there is a god.
No. That's not what I said. What I said was that if people believe in Thor, then Thor can be labeled a god because the term "god" means "people believe that this is a being with supernatural powers and deserves worship".

Your "Napoleon" example doesn't work because the term "Napoleon" does not mean "people believe that this person is Napoleon".
If you showed me that list I would chuckle and say fictional characters.
Okay what is the difference between these two lists:

List 1 -
Harry Potter, Mickey Mouse, Indiana Jones, Superman

List 2 -
Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Osiris, Vishnu

What makes list 2 different than list 1? Anything?
Why is Thor a "god"? Why is Vishnu a "god"? Why is Ra a "god"?
They were made up along with Yahweh and Jesus.
They are all at the center of a religion in which people believe them to have special powers and require worship.
Lmfao the wrong meter just broke!
You think that Thor, Vishnu, Ra, Yahweh weren't at the center of different religions? That people didn't worship them?

I'm not sure you know how to use the wrong meter.
Did I say Bigfoot was a god? No but people believe thy exist and by your argument they must exist.
Sigh. Seriously. Get a piece of paper and write this down.

Simply believing something exists DOES NOT MEAN IT EXISTS.

However, even though various gods DO NOT EXIST, the fact that people BELIEVE IN THEM means that we can make a category called "gods" and place those names in that category.

So, people BELIEVE IN Bigfoot. He doesn't exist. People don't worship him. There is no religion surrounding him. Therefore, he's not a god.

Meanwhile, people BELIEVED in Thor. He ALSO doesn't exist. People DID worship him. There WAS a religion surrounding him. Therefore, he's a god.

You keep trying to argue that these gods don't "really exist". NO SH!T. That's not the point, it never was.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#63 Sep 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Start at the beginning of this thread and work your way down.
Not very good at looking up stuff are you?
Why would I start at the beginning of a thread which consists primarily of you mischaracterizing my point?

Skippy, my point is exactly the same as it has been for three months. It's EXTREMELY simple.

The word "god" has a definition. We can look at things which match the definition and say, "These match the definition, therefore they are gods".

You can substitute ANY word in there.

The word "ball" has a definition. We can look at things which match the definition and say, "these match the definition, therefore they are balls".

The word "pen" has a definition. We can look at the things which match the definition and say, "these match the definition, tehrefore they are pens."

You've spent three months claiming that you can't use the dictionary to look up a definition.

It's a RIDICULOUS claim on your point. So bad, in fact, that you had to start a completely new thread just to try and convince other people that dictionaries don't exist.

Time to give up. You are NEVER going to win this argument because you are CLEARLY in the wrong.

Dictionaries exist. They give the definitions for words. If something matches the definition, then the word applies to that thing.

It's REALLY that simple.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 2 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 7,205
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 19 min Kaitlin the Wolf ... 238,947
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 2 hr NoahLovesU 7,435
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 3 hr superwilly 88
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... Thu thetruth 29
News .com | What hope is there without God? Wed Kaitlin the Wolf ... 26
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) May 20 thetruth 2,171
More from around the web