Is atheism a belief?

[Bucky Ball]

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.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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."

[Angrboda]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Bucky Ball]

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 ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

[Bucky Ball]

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

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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?

[Bucky Ball]

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.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.