I have some questions for the posters here.

[Frank Apisa]

I was asked a question...and I answered it. I answered it reasonably and courteously.

If you are just looking for reasons to ban me...just do it. Don't beat around the bush and pretend that I am doing something wrong.

I would like to be a decent participant in this forum. Obviously I am not going to toe the atheistic philosophical line. If that means that I have to go...okay with me. But do it with some class...rather than trying to back door the move.

---

You do you.  I will respond according to the rules.

And there is no such thing as an "atheistic philosophical line."

Teach me class...and how to be reasonable...you are such a pompous ass that it would be great fun to learn from such a master of both.

Seems you need the instruction, whatever your name is.

I am not a pompous ass. I am someone challenging the atheistic philosophical line...and you don't like that.

It is, what a ref might call, a no contest. 

YOU WILL WIN.

But it is like Mike Tyson challenging a kindergartener to a fist fight. You have the full strength of the forum...and the power to kick my ass out. All I can do is bump heads...use facts and reasonable arguments. You know that I am always in the down position.

Anyway, continue to pretend you are showing me the "what's and wherefore's" if it helps you get off...but I am laughing at the nonsense.

So...back to any questions you may have of me...or, if you would rather dig a bit deeper, perhaps I can offer you a bigger shovel.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now I think I see the problem. You believe that a claim to knowledge is unreasonable - but I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. It's reasonable for a person to refer to whatever set of sound assertions they might propose and reach a conclusion. You don't have to agree with the conclusion or even their assertions for the knowledge claim to be reasonable.

Does that clear anything up for you? Based on sound assertions about the subject of your question, I can answer positively, and this is entirely like any other knowledge I possess or claim to possess, about anything. Short of some gripe with any knowledge claim, I'm not sure you'll get very far with the bland accusation that anyone who knows something you don't is somehow unreasonable.

No, gods don't exist, gods described as the entities which created our universe. They're stories we tell to children, we created them, not the other way around.

[arewethereyet]

You do you.  I will respond according to the rules.

And there is no such thing as an "atheistic philosophical line."

Teach me class...and how to be reasonable...you are such a pompous ass that it would be great fun to learn from such a master of both.

Seems you need the instruction, whatever your name is.

I am not a pompous ass. I am someone challenging the atheistic philosophical line...and you don't like that.

It is, what a ref might call, a no contest. 

YOU WILL WIN.

But it is like Mike Tyson challenging a kindergartener to a fist fight. You have the full strength of the forum...and the power to kick my ass out. All I can do is bump heads...use facts and reasonable arguments. You know that I am always in the down position.

Anyway, continue to pretend you are showing me the "what's and wherefore's" if it helps you get off...but I am laughing at the nonsense.

So...back to any questions you may have of me...or, if you would rather dig a bit deeper, perhaps I can offer you a bigger shovel.

No questions from me. I can see what you are.

This isn't about win or lose.

Scooter, if I had full power to boot you, I'd have done it a long time ago. But there's a process here and I am following that process.

You haven't used facts. You have stated what you believe.

How about human meat though...I guess I do have a question...what's your preferred cut?

[Frank Apisa]

Seems you need the instruction, whatever your name is.

I am not a pompous ass. I am someone challenging the atheistic philosophical line...and you don't like that.

It is, what a ref might call, a no contest. 

YOU WILL WIN.

But it is like Mike Tyson challenging a kindergartener to a fist fight. You have the full strength of the forum...and the power to kick my ass out. All I can do is bump heads...use facts and reasonable arguments. You know that I am always in the down position.

Anyway, continue to pretend you are showing me the "what's and wherefore's" if it helps you get off...but I am laughing at the nonsense.

So...back to any questions you may have of me...or, if you would rather dig a bit deeper, perhaps I can offer you a bigger shovel.

No questions from me.  I can see what you are.  

This isn't about win or lose.

Scooter, if I had full power to boot you, I'd have done it a long time ago.  But there's a process here and I am following that process.

You haven't used facts.   You have stated what you believe.  

How about human meat though...I guess I do have a question...what's your preferred cut?

My name is not Scooter...it is Frank. And I have the balls to use it, rather than those moronic screen names like you are using.

I am sure you would have booted me long ago...even though I have only been here four days. 

People like you are the reason so few rational conversations can occur on the Internet. How you are entrusted with moderating in this forum is beyond me. You do not have the skills necessary for such an undertaking.

Now...lets get back to the thread...although I already have the answers I was looking for. If you have anything to add on topic, I'll hear it. But since you are a moderator...your interest should be in getting the thread back on track.

[arewethereyet]

No questions from me.  I can see what you are.  

This isn't about win or lose.

Scooter, if I had full power to boot you, I'd have done it a long time ago.  But there's a process here and I am following that process.

You haven't used facts.   You have stated what you believe.  

How about human meat though...I guess I do have a question...what's your preferred cut?

My name is not Scooter...it is Frank. And I have the balls to use it, rather than those moronic screen names like you are using.

I am sure you would have booted me long ago...even though I have only been here four days. 

People like you are the reason so few rational conversations can occur on the Internet. How you are entrusted with moderating in this forum is beyond me. You do not have the skills necessary for such an undertaking.

Now...lets get back to the thread...although I already have the answers I was looking for. If you have anything to add on topic, I'll hear it. But since you are a moderator...your interest should be in getting the thread back on track.

Oh, you sweet talker you.

Absolutely charming.

Was there a topic? Seems that you asked what people here think and then told them you didn't like what they think.

[Paleophyte]

CAPS don't make you right, they just make you loud. Try bold for emphasis if you need it.

The strict definitions for theist and atheist don't leave any room for anything else. If you believe then you're a theist, if not then you're an atheist. The Law of the Excluded Middle removes all other possibilities. That said, strict definitions rarely work well in a fluid and ever changing society. Many people use nonbeliever instead. I prefer something with a little more class like heathen, infidel, or heretic.

Agnostic is pretty muddled as it tries to insert what we do and don't know into what we believe or don't believe. Two very different beasties. At any rate it doesn't suit you. What you are is Holier Than Thou. You like to think that you're better than theists because they can't prove that god exists. And you like to think that you're better than atheists because we can't prove that god doesn't exist. All the while you're tilting at strawmen on both sides and completely failing at the whole Righteous Rationalist schtick. Meanwhile the rest of us are getting a chuckle out of the fact that we can't disprove your god because you've failed to adequately define it.

I do not do "holier than thou" nonsense.

I do not think I am better than theists or atheists.

Then I have to wonder what this is:

I know of many atheists who are certain they KNOW that no gods exist...or KNOW that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I think they are all full of soup.

I have never seen any theist who thinks that way...or atheist who thinks that way...come up with any logic or science that rationalizes those guesses.

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs.

Clearly you think we're all full of soup (BTW, this is a belief). And we must all be pretty stupid too.

[Frank Apisa]

My name is not Scooter...it is Frank. And I have the balls to use it, rather than those moronic screen names like you are using.

I am sure you would have booted me long ago...even though I have only been here four days. 

People like you are the reason so few rational conversations can occur on the Internet. How you are entrusted with moderating in this forum is beyond me. You do not have the skills necessary for such an undertaking.

Now...lets get back to the thread...although I already have the answers I was looking for. If you have anything to add on topic, I'll hear it. But since you are a moderator...your interest should be in getting the thread back on track.

Oh, you sweet talker you.  

Absolutely charming.

Was there a topic?  Seems that you asked what people here think and then told them you didn't like what they think.

I have not told anyone that I do not like what they think.

Not here or anywhere else I have posted.

What is your problem?

---

I do not do "holier than thou" nonsense.

I do not think I am better than theists or atheists.

Then I have to wonder what this is:

I know of many atheists who are certain they KNOW that no gods exist...or KNOW that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I think they are all full of soup.

I have never seen any theist who thinks that way...or atheist who thinks that way...come up with any logic or science that rationalizes those guesses.

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs.

Clearly you think we're all full of soup (BTW, this is a belief). And we must all be pretty stupid too.

I do not think you are stupid. I do think many of you are gullible. I think anyone who claims to KNOW that there are no gods...is full of it. 

But we are discussing it.

Okay with me if you think I am way off base also.

[Paleophyte]

If you wanted reasonable discussion then coming onto a forum, telling people what they think and insulting them for it was a poor way to go.

Well, seems I am not going to have a reasonable discussion with you.

I'll try to get over my disappointment.

If you have a problem with everybody else then odds are the problem isn't everybody else.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just have to know how we're using the word gullible now. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a specific thing. Do you think they've been tricked by someone into...not believing a thing?

[Paleophyte]

I do not think you are stupid. I do think many of you are gullible. 

And you aren't? Congratulations on your superiority.

Gullibility implies that we've been misled by somebody else. Who would that be?

I think anyone who claims to KNOW that there are no gods...is full of it.

Another belief?