Hello. Bestest Turtle is temporarily "Bestest Turtle" just for funniez. Yesh.

Cool new name.

It iz temporary for now.

As distinct from temporary for good?

No I just like making tautological statements that are true by definition with extra redundancy that say the same thing more than once using the same words.

However: I absolutely hate making oxymorons though because they're never bitter-sweet. I despise and love them, I also can't stand statements that are self-contradictory, which, of course, I also love because such statements are not at all self-contradictory.

P.S. The above are true facts about myself.

P.P.S. Married bachelors are fo' real fo' sho. They haz existentness-making in their very own presence of them being alive and all around the shop: I like them because they're not existent, present or anywhere to be found.

Whatever you're smoking, Evie, I need to get me some of that.

I'm going to need it tomorrow night.

If anyone wants to learn anything "about atheists" it should be this: we're not a hive mind. You can learn about individual atheists, but you can't learn "about atheists". The best you can do is find trends, such as scepticism. I'd very roughly guess 75% of professed atheists are sceptics. Would people agree?

Of course, "atheist" is simply a description. Whether or not someone actually is an atheist is not dependent on whether they claim to be one or claim not to be.

Please don't make the mistake of generalising atheists. Even a strong trend such as the above should not be used as an assumption. If you want to know about an atheist, ask that atheist. And if your point is about sceptics, or naturalists, or scientists, then just say so rather than using "atheists" as a generalization.

(January 16, 2016 at 6:30 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Whatever you're smoking, Evie, I need to get me some of that.

I'm going to need it tomorrow night.

I'm just inhaling this very ubiquitous thing called "oxygen".

Oh, but I also happen to be an over-enthusiastic turtle, that always helps me seem totally cray-cray, hence the

Spudgun Wrote:Are you on drugs? Can I have some?

responses that I tend to get.

(January 16, 2016 at 6:32 am)robvalue Wrote: If anyone wants to learn anything "about atheists" it should be this: we're not a hive mind. You can learn about individual atheists, but you can't learn "about atheists". The best you can do is find trends, such as scepticism. I'd very roughly guess 75% of professed atheists are sceptics. Would people agree?

Of course, "atheist" is simply a description. Whether or not someone actually is an atheist is not dependent on whether they claim to be one or claim not to be.

Please don't make the mistake of generalising atheists. Even a strong trend such as the above should not be used as an assumption. If you want to know about an atheist, ask that atheist. And if your point is about sceptics, or naturalists, or scientists, then just say so rather than using "atheists" as a generalization.

Well, that makes an awful lot of sense, Rob.

For this reason, it's advice bound to fall upon wooden ears.

Also, bummed about Delicate's bannage. So much mockery left undone ...