(December 26, 2018 at 3:52 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: What are you talking about?  Do you even know?  I didn't declare any period, nor did I feel the need to.  It was a term used to "distinguish."  With the exception of the bold, the source was stated exactly as it appeared in the source verbatim.  There is no requirement for me to look for bits and pieces to mine to make you happy, and the statement quoted was the opening in the reference establishing the overall work.  I have no requirement to quote the entire work, and the linked citation is sufficient to generate further discussion if you have questions or concerns.  That is not cherry picking.  Unless you are suggesting the overall reference was cherry picked to create bias.  Is that what you're doing?  If so, I would be happy to delve into it further with you

Seriously, wake up dude.  I expect people to disagree on certain things here, but what you do is beyond that.  You constantly jump to nonsensical conclusions about things.  Once again...

Derp!

"That's just your opinion" and "it's a string of logical fallacies".
I showed that it WAS important to state what period you're talking about, (which you didn't) because the meaning CHANGED. 
You're inane little tactic of bullying (the same as Drisch), isn't really working for you.
BTW "in saecula saeculorum" means "forever" (as in countless Latin liturgies) ... so what it means is entirely contextual.

(December 26, 2018 at 6:42 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 3:52 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: What are you talking about?  Do you even know?  I didn't declare any period, nor did I feel the need to.  It was a term used to "distinguish."  With the exception of the bold, the source was stated exactly as it appeared in the source verbatim.  There is no requirement for me to look for bits and pieces to mine to make you happy, and the statement quoted was the opening in the reference establishing the overall work.  I have no requirement to quote the entire work, and the linked citation is sufficient to generate further discussion if you have questions or concerns.  That is not cherry picking.  Unless you are suggesting the overall reference was cherry picked to create bias.  Is that what you're doing?  If so, I would be happy to delve into it further with you

Seriously, wake up dude.  I expect people to disagree on certain things here, but what you do is beyond that.  You constantly jump to nonsensical conclusions about things.  Once again...

Derp!

I showed that it WAS important to state what period you're talking about, (which you didn't) because the meaning CHANGED. 
You're inane little tactic of bullying (the same as Drisch), isn't really working for you.
BTW "in saecula saeculorum" means "forever" (as in countless Latin liturgies) ... so what it means is entirely contextual.

It was used to "distinguish."  I wasn't bullying you.  You just randomly start spouting nonsense about things.  If you feel I haven't stated something sufficiently to your understanding of said topic, you are welcome to ask.  I wasn't "cherry picking" anything and never stated it was exhaustive.   That's how you have dialogue with someone.  I'm more than happy to expand on something, and I don't intentionally go out of my way to "cherry pick."

I'm guessing that Max is some relation to Drich. They both make similar arguments about how citing a source that contradicts them is not fatal to their claim. How anyone can be this brain damaged and not accidentally drown themselves trying to successfully use a toilet is a mystery to me.

(December 26, 2018 at 12:27 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 11:56 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You need to learn a new trick.  While you're busy doing that, get a little Celsus in your life.  Recall that both secularism and humanism were conceived of by the faithful, and that the majority of human beings are still believers.  Maybe just ask some of these other atheists whether they're gnostic atheists, like I am?

I jest, ofc..we know that these are the things you simply won't do, now don't we.

Secularity (derived from the word "secular" which comes from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years) is the state of being separate from religion[/url], or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion]religion. Historically, the word secular was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavour.  Source


When you say "humanism", it's important to define what you mean by it because the term is often used loosely.  The dictionary has nine definitions for it.  Many of them are closely related, but not in totality.

And?  Is there some problem that you'd like to address, specifically...or did you just feel the need to type something...anything...?

(December 26, 2018 at 6:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 6:42 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: I showed that it WAS important to state what period you're talking about, (which you didn't) because the meaning CHANGED. 
You're inane little tactic of bullying (the same as Drisch), isn't really working for you.
BTW "in saecula saeculorum" means "forever" (as in countless Latin liturgies) ... so what it means is entirely contextual.

It was used to "distinguish."  I wasn't bullying you.  You just randomly start spouting nonsense about things.  If you feel I haven't stated something sufficiently to your understanding of said topic, you are welcome to ask.  I wasn't "cherry picking" anything and never stated it was exhaustive.   That's how you have dialogue with someone.  I'm more than happy to expand on something, and I don't intentionally go out of my way to "cherry pick."

That's just your opinion and it's a string of logical fallacies. 
Sound familiar ?

(December 26, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 6:58 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: It was used to "distinguish."  I wasn't bullying you.  You just randomly start spouting nonsense about things.  If you feel I haven't stated something sufficiently to your understanding of said topic, you are welcome to ask.  I wasn't "cherry picking" anything and never stated it was exhaustive.   That's how you have dialogue with someone.  I'm more than happy to expand on something, and I don't intentionally go out of my way to "cherry pick."

That's just your opinion and it's a string of logical fallacies. 
Sound familiar ?

Oh really?  Which part of it was a logical fallacy?

It said in the referenced piece it was to "distinguish" (check)

You randomly spout nonsense about things (check)

You're welcome to ask me to expand on things if you feel I didn't thoroughly address something to your satisfaction. (check)

Never claimed I represented anything exhaustively (check)

Dialogue goes back and forth. At least if you hope to accomplish anything meaningful in a discussion. (check)

Didn't cherry pick anything.  It was cited, and you attempted to validate yourself with the same source (check)

The first thought that comes to mind when listening to your nonsensical banter is "Derp"  (check)

I don't mind when people disagree, but my hope is always to have dialogue that is friendly and constructive.  You seem to want to go down a different route, so maybe go bother someone else.  If not, fair enough.  Have a good one.

(December 26, 2018 at 9:33 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: That's just your opinion and it's a string of logical fallacies. 
Sound familiar ?

Oh really?  Which part of it was a logical fallacy?

It said in the referenced piece it was to "distinguish" (check)

You randomly spout nonsense about things (check)

You're welcome to ask me to expand on things if you feel I didn't thoroughly address something to your satisfaction. (check)

Never claimed I represented anything exhaustively (check)

Dialogue goes back and forth. At least if you hope to accomplish anything meaningful in a discussion. (check)

Didn't cherry pick anything.  It was cited, and you attempted to validate yourself with the same source (check)

The first thought that comes to mind when listening to your nonsensical banter is "Derp"  (check)

I don't mind when people disagree, but my hope is always to have dialogue that is friendly and constructive.  You seem to want to go down a different route, so maybe go bother someone else.  If not, fair enough.  Have a good one.

Oh for fuck sake .... I was quoting YOU ... it was a JOKE. Idiot. 

It's hilarious that theists insist that atheism is a religion, even while claiming the have a "personal relationship" with their imaginary friend. 
Whatever that relationship is all about, it certainly says a lot, that they compare it and insist it's the same sort of thing, as those who have no imaginary friends AT ALL. 
LOL

(December 26, 2018 at 9:41 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 9:33 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Oh really?  Which part of it was a logical fallacy?

It said in the referenced piece it was to "distinguish" (check)

You randomly spout nonsense about things (check)

You're welcome to ask me to expand on things if you feel I didn't thoroughly address something to your satisfaction. (check)

Never claimed I represented anything exhaustively (check)

Dialogue goes back and forth. At least if you hope to accomplish anything meaningful in a discussion. (check)

Didn't cherry pick anything.  It was cited, and you attempted to validate yourself with the same source (check)

The first thought that comes to mind when listening to your nonsensical banter is "Derp"  (check)

I don't mind when people disagree, but my hope is always to have dialogue that is friendly and constructive.  You seem to want to go down a different route, so maybe go bother someone else.  If not, fair enough.  Have a good one.

Oh for fuck sake .... I was quoting YOU ... it was a JOKE. Idiot. 

It's hilarious that theists insist that atheism is a religion, even while claiming the have a "personal relationship" with their imaginary friend. 
Whatever that relationship is all about, it certainly says a lot, that they compare it and insist it's the same sort of thing, as those who have no imaginary friends AT ALL. 
LOL

Cool.  You find something hilarious and you're interested in claims about imaginary friends.  Anything else you would like me to know?

(December 26, 2018 at 9:47 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 9:41 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Oh for fuck sake .... I was quoting YOU ... it was a JOKE. Idiot. 

It's hilarious that theists insist that atheism is a religion, even while claiming the have a "personal relationship" with their imaginary friend. 
Whatever that relationship is all about, it certainly says a lot, that they compare it and insist it's the same sort of thing, as those who have no imaginary friends AT ALL. 
LOL

Cool.  You find something hilarious and you're interested in claims about imaginary friends.  Anything else you would like me to know?

No. You already know it. 
You're a fraud. 
How many actual hours did you spend actually praying today to your imaginary friend today ? 
Oh, none ? 
You're no theist. You're an internet troll, masquerading as a theist.

(December 26, 2018 at 10:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 26, 2018 at 9:47 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Cool.  You find something hilarious and you're interested in claims about imaginary friends.  Anything else you would like me to know?

No. You already know it. 
You're a fraud. 
How many actual hours did you spend actually praying today to your imaginary friend today ? 
Oh, none ? 
You're no theist. You're an internet troll, masquerading as a theist.

What imaginary friend?  When did I claim I have said imaginary friend?

Like I said, if you feel you can invalidate me, you're free to do so before an unbiased panel.  Other than that, talk is cheap.

Internet troll because you said so?  There ya go.  You can tell that to a panel.   If not... *yawn*  just a bunch of nonsense per the usual.