Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

I already have (along with several others in this thread), with every single reply destroying each and every argument you wield.

Well if by exposing me for believing that you'd actually be stupid enough to post what you did then I'm exposed. I really thought you'd be that dumb. Sorry about that TC, I truly am.

 

[ThinClient]

My adding the emoticon was even mocking you while baiting you and you STILL took the bait, troll.

 

[Juddog]

My adding the emoticon was even mocking you while baiting you and you STILL took the bait, troll.

He is 100% troll - he pretends to not understand basic 7th grade math, then states that he took calculus. He states his version of a word is correct, versus the version that is actually in the dictionary, then gets mad that we don't think of the word the same as him, then even after clarification, continues to use his definition.

It's the equivalent of someone stating that red means green, then even after you correct him, when you say "that fire hydrant is red", him replying "no it's not - it's green."

One person cannot possibly be this stupid and yet understand calculus at the same time, so the only logical conclusion is that he's trolling us non stop in this thread for his amusement.

 

[ThinClient]

Sounds like you're right, J. :thumbsup: Figures, stupid religious people would have to stoop to this level to participate in the discussion this long. Sad, really. I kinda feel embarrassed for him.

 

[buckshot24]

Sounds like you're right, J. :thumbsup: Figures, stupid religious people would have to stoop to this level to participate in the discussion this long. Sad, really. I kinda feel embarrassed for him.

I thought I was a troll and not religious at all? Would you make up your mind.

 

[Retro Rob]

They would if stamp collectors went around preaching, oppressing others, and using their stamp collecting to legislate based on their stamp collecting.

You fight those battles in the proper forum, then, which is through the legal system.

But coming and posting anonymously on a forum and calling religious people stupid, is the equivalent of randomly walking up to a group of stamp-collectors and telling them how stupid collecting stamps is.

You have problem with religion in legislation, sure, coming on to Anandtech and complaining about it will ruffle their feathers....

Stop preaching about your lack of belief, and you'd be suprised at how many people stop calling atheism a belief.

I don't use the internet to tell people how much I enjoy NOT collecting stamps....

 

[buckshot24]

He is 100% troll - he pretends to not understand basic 7th grade math, then states that he took calculus. He states his version of a word is correct, versus the version that is actually in the dictionary, then gets mad that we don't think of the word the same as him, then even after clarification, continues to use his definition.

I took up to calc 4 FYI. I didn't deny 7th grade math either.

It's the equivalent of someone stating that red means green, then even after you correct him, when you say "that fire hydrant is red", him replying "no it's not - it's green."

Now who is failing 7th grade math? That isn't equivalent at all. Anyway I really don't care if you think you don't have any beliefs.

 

[sandorski]

Would you pick out the corn or just dispose of the whole pile?

That depends.

 

[buckshot24]

My adding the emoticon was even mocking you while baiting you and you STILL took the bait, troll.

So if somebody knows that elements are not molecules then they must be......? What?

 

[buckshot24]

That depends.

If you really like corn?

 

[Juddog]

I took up to calc 4 FYI. I didn't deny 7th grade math either.
Now who is failing 7th grade math? That isn't equivalent at all.

It is the equivalent - you're changing the definition of a word that is plainly stated in a dictionary to one of your own definition, then getting mad at people for not agreeing that the word means what you say it means.

Anyway I really don't care if you think you don't have any beliefs.

I never stated I had no beliefs. Your logical weakness shows in your constant straw man fallacious arguments.

 

[Juddog]

You fight those battles in the proper forum, then, which is through the legal system.

Bringing the terrorists to the legal system forum, the ones that flew a building into the WTC and killed thousands of people, is possible how again?

How about those suicide bombers, praying for the death of infidels?

 

[Juddog]

The English dictionary isn't all there is to words. You can't reduce atheism down to one sentence.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
Parsing this would be more honest.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

or this.

The dictionary is specifically good for definitions. What you posted are philosophical discussions around a concept which you don't even understand, which is not the same thing. I can sit and write pages of philosophy on whether the chair I sit in is real or not, but when it comes down to communicating with other people, I look in the dictionary for the definition of chair.

 

[Juddog]

Your brain is evidence. You think it's more reasonable to believe that it evolved from some unknown self replicating molecule.

There is direct evidence that we evolved from other mammals, as opposed to the Biblical version where the talking snake convinced the rib woman to eat the magic fruit. We have directly applied this knowledge via vaccines and other medicines, versus the story of talking snakes and rib women which we can't do anything with.

It's pretty clear that one is a fairy tale and one is actually useful.

 

[Retro Rob]

Bringing the terrorists to the legal system forum, the ones that flew a building into the WTC and killed thousands of people, is possible how again?

They killed Bin-Laden... that didn't happen by creating an account on Anandtech Fourms.

 

[sandorski]

If you really like corn?

Maybe you really need the seeds.

 

[buckshot24]

It is the equivalent - you're changing the definition of a word that is plainly stated in a dictionary to one of your own definition, then getting mad at people for not agreeing that the word means what you say it means.

I didn't get mad for one thing. Secondly, it isn't equivalent because atheism can't rightly be described by one sentence in a dictionary. You'd be better off looking an entry in a philosophical encyclopedia than at freedictionary.com. Red and blue are unambiguous terms. Atheism is NOT. Therefore you fail at 7th grade math. There is no equivalence.

I never stated I had no beliefs. Your logical weakness shows in your constant straw man fallacious arguments.

Ok Good. Atheists have beliefs, cool. That's what I was getting at.

Also remember when this whole thing started overkill said something about where atheists get their beliefs or something like that. You then seemed to say that you don't have beliefs. Keep in mind he didn't say anything about your belief as it pertains to God he just said beliefs.

 

[Juddog]

Yes, you have no beliefs. Conceded.

I didn't state anywhere that I have no beliefs - now you are showing your lack of English skills as well. In this thread you have shown sub-7th grade math level comprehension, no logic comprehension whatsoever, sub 9th grade biology understanding, and now you are showing a lack in reading skills as well.

Based upon your posts here, either you are purposefully suppressing your intellect to believe in something which doesn't make logical sense, trolling the thread knowing full well that what you post is complete garbage - for the "lulz", or alternately are lying about what grade of math you have gotten to.

So I AM supposed to run down every bunny trail and address all the points TO YOU or I'm ignoring the evidence. That is just stupid.

We posted evidence. You said "the source is laughable" and didn't refute said evidence. Show your counter evidence or concede that you cannot grasp basic logic.

I love how you're arguing to follow evidence and yet you've constructed evidence out of thin air to attack me. You have ZERO evidence that I've not dealt with this idiotic site on my own.

Evidence was posted - you attacked the source instead of refuting said evidence. Logic 101 fail.

I don't need to demonstrate the false accusations of that site publicly to your satisfaction in order to have dealt with them. And do you honestly think I've never seen those accusations before? Do you think I just discovered it because TC posted a link?

So let me get this straight:

* You've seen the arguments presented by that site before, most likely because it quotes the actual bible. You have read the Bible - right?
* The sites accusations are false - uhhh in what way? Did the Bible say those things, or did it not say those things?
* You've seen the accusations before, from multiple sources - again this is because the Bible actually says those things. If the Bible didn't make ridiculous claims, then people wouldn't have anything to refute.

 

[buckshot24]

There is direct evidence that we evolved from other mammals, as opposed to the Biblical version where the talking snake convinced the rib woman to eat the magic fruit. We have directly applied this knowledge via vaccines and other medicines, versus the story of talking snakes and rib women which we can't do anything with.

There is no evidence that you can get a human brain or anything else from a planet with zero life on it. There is nothing about living organisms that suggest that they come from anything other than other living organisms. Yet, you believe that it happened. Your great^1,000,000,000 th grand father was a crystal!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fixed to show the absurdity.

That doesn't show anything. Is that seriously your argument?

Yeah, you've already said that. But thanks for putting in some variables.

Did you have anything intelligent to say?

 

[OverVolt]

That's like saying that not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

You're an idiot or a troll.

It is a belief, there is no solid evidence if there is a god or not, and thus any opinion on the matter is a belief. Inb4 everyone suddenly turns agnostic. Which is more like a cop out. Agnostics have an opinion, they just won't share it or stick to one.

 

[Juddog]

I didn't get mad for one thing.

You did get mad - you showed it through your text that you were upset with people for not accepting your definition of a word, versus the one in the dictionary.

Secondly, it isn't equivalent because atheism can't rightly be described by one sentence in a dictionary.

It can and it has been described in one sentence in a dictionary. You are overcomplicating the definition because you refuse to accept it.

You'd be better off looking an entry in a philosophical encyclopedia than at freedictionary.com.

Now you're really stretching - you want people to read through a philosophical discussion on every word? You sound worse than president Clinton arguing about the definition of what the word "is" is. Words have explicit definitions, that's how people are able to communicate in a common form. If you have a custom definition of the word that is different than the dictionary, then you can't possibly expect other people to go by your definition.

Red and blue are unambiguous terms. Atheism is NOT. Therefore you fail at 7th grade math. There is no equivalence.

Atheism is an unambiguous term. It's explicitly defined in a bunch of dictionaries. If you want the dictionary to change it's definition, then petition each of the dictionary companies to change their definition instead of demanding that readers go by your version of the word. Better yet - use a different word, or set of words, to argue your meaning. That's what sentences are for.

Ok Good. Atheists have beliefs, cool. That's what I was getting at.

You do know that someone can believe or not believe in multiple things right? If you believe in the easter bunny, does that mean you automatically believe in santa claus too?

Also remember when this whole thing started overkill said something about where atheists get their beliefs or something like that. You then seemed to say that you don't have beliefs. Keep in mind he didn't say anything about your belief as it pertains to God he just said beliefs.

I never stated that I don't have beliefs. Either quote where I said that or shut the fuck up already. You continue to make this assertion without ever quoting me. What I stated is that atheism is the lack of belief in theism. You are conflating the terms.

 

[buckshot24]

We posted evidence.

TC posted evidence, you had nothing to do with it.

You said "the source is laughable" and didn't refute said evidence. Show your counter evidence or concede that you cannot grasp basic logic.

So I am supposed to refute the entire site.

Evidence was posted - you attacked the source instead of refuting said evidence. Logic 101 fail.

Is this a formal debate?

So let me get this straight:

* You've seen the arguments presented by that site before, most likely because it quotes the actual bible. You have read the Bible - right?
* The sites accusations are false - uhhh in what way? Did the Bible say those things, or did it not say those things?

Drop it dude, I'm not going to present counter arguments here to each point those links made. Not happening. Not conceding, not playing your game.

You're confusing this place with an academic debate. I don't need to refute anything if I don't want to.

 

[Juddog]

You're confusing this place with an academic debate. I don't need to refute anything if I don't want to.

Yes you've made it abundantly clear that your only purpose in this thread is to troll.

 

[buckshot24]

You did get mad - you showed it through your text that you were upset with people for not accepting your definition of a word, versus the one in the dictionary.

The thing with "skeptics" is that they are so uncritical of their conclusions whenever a theist is involved. You don't know that I got mad yet you know that I got mad.

Now you're really stretching - you want people to read through a philosophical discussion on every word?

No, just on words that are large enough to warrant it. You're fine with being defined by one sentence but these sorts of philosophical words are much more nuanced. I wouldn't say to do that for "red" for instance. Atheism entails much more than 5-7 words.

You sound worse than president Clinton arguing about the definition of what the word "is" is. Words have explicit definitions, that's how people are able to communicate in a common form. If you have a custom definition of the word that is different than the dictionary, then you can't possibly expect other people to go by your definition.

Hey, I've moved on I don't expect anything from you.

You do know that someone can believe or not believe in multiple things right? If you believe in the easter bunny, does that mean you automatically believe in santa claus too?

Never insinuated otherwise. You have beliefs, overkill talked about how you seemed to get those beliefs. You then go on about non belief in God. He wasn't talking about that belief.

I never stated that I don't have beliefs. Either quote where I said that or shut the fuck up already. You continue to make this assertion without ever quoting me. What I stated is that atheism is the lack of belief in theism. You are conflating the terms.

I think you've conflated the terms because overkill talked about beliefs in general and not about God. I've got it now, you have beliefs. Thanks for clearing that up.