WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Correct Huggables, your unwillingness to flip back a few pages = you win.

I think it would be great to use this thread going forward as a pigeon chessboard example.

[Thumpalumpacus]

SMH, again with the irrelevant topics. Like I said, a tactic straight out of Fidel's book. In case you missed it, the discussion was about whether or not secular societies tended to be happier, do you agree or disagree?

In case you missed, you're not even understanding how you're wrong. The difference between "secular" and "atheist" is crucial to this discussion -- yet you've demonstrated repeatedly that you not only do not understand that difference, you refuse to educate yourself about it. As a result, you're citing a shallow poll without understanding that you're buttressing your interlocutor's argument. These aren't irrelevancies; these are your misunderstandings which lie at the core of why you're wrong, but I don't expect you to get that.

As for my opinion on secular societies being happier, that seems to be the case.

Actually you should be going the other direction and proclaiming my genius, because basically, all your saying is that your argument was destroyed by an idiot....

It's funny how you think you've "destroyed" an argument because you've found one minor error which was quickly owned ... while at the same time you've lashed yourself to the anchor of a large body of ignorance and are shouting victory ... even as you go under.

I do have to hand it to Rhythm though, he is the first and only Atheist on this forum I've seen admit they were wrong.

This simply underlines the fact that you're either not reading my posts, or you're too stupid to understand the English language. Look at the second sentence of my post #167 in this thread, numbnuts, and this time read for comprehension ... assuming you can actually do that, of course.

Just concede defeat and move on dude...

Demonstrate your point, and I'll consider it, depending on the quality of your argumentation.

I won't lie, I'd be surprised if you managed to manufacture a cogent point, much less argue it successfully. You don't strike me as terribly bright.

[Huggy Bear]

Correct Huggables, your unwillingness to flip back a few pages = you win.

I think the refusal to answer a simple yes or no question on whether or not Denmark is secular speaks volumes, especially when he already stated it was secular. Now FIDEL commences with the back pedaling.

But I like how you guys band together on the wrong side of an argument despite the facts, and who said atheists can't also be fanatical.

But I digress did you have something to add?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your refusal to answer a simple yes or no question is very telling.

Your refusal to understand the crucial term of the discussion is more than telling -- it's damning.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Just to note to all readers of this thread, not once have I back peddled, nor changed my argument, nor redefined a word to suit my argument. These are all accusations thrown at me by dry nights, and I invite everyone to go through the thread to assess for themselves.

[FatAndFaithless]

Nah...I'm too lazy to flip back a few pages~

[Huggy Bear]

In case you missed, you're not even understanding how you're wrong. The difference between is crucial to this discussion

The difference between "secular" and "atheist" is not crucial at all in this discussion, it's irrelevant.

In case you haven't been paying attention the discussion is about whether or not the happiest societies tend to be secular. Now if you would, explain why the difference between "secular" and "atheist" is crucial to that discussion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nah...I'm too lazy to flip back a few pages~

... I'd rather redefine "back-pedal" so that it has a meaning amenable to my point.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Nah...I'm too lazy to flip back a few pages~

He accused me of editing his replies and also resulting to the tactic of re-defining a word a few pages back.

What a strange little man.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In case you missed, you're not even understanding how you're wrong. The difference between is crucial to this discussion

The difference between "secular" and "atheist" is not crucial at all in this discussion, it's irrelevant.

Only to an idiot.

In case you haven't been paying attention the discussion is about whether or not the happiest societies tend to be secular. Now if you would, explain why the difference between "secular" and "atheist" is crucial to that discussion.

Because counting atheist countries in the secular column is a category error. I'm surprised a genius such as yourself, who bends the English language to his will, would fail to see such an obvious point.

But don't worry, with enough practice, one day, somewhere, you'll convince someone you are intelligent. Protip: stop asking stupid questions like this.