Do u want there to be a God? Any God?

[Amarok]

Here's a question for you though.  Can you name one institute, organization, or academy devoted to higher education that adheres to a position that would suggest I should accept your definition on the basis of science, logic, or speech and without bias?  If so, I would appreciate a link to their web page that mentions that standard so I can considerate it in light of your definition.

So blah blah blah blah

Yes, but I'll wait for his answer.

And it will likely be very similar to mine 

To you blah blah blah blah

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Yes, but I'll wait for his answer.

And it will likely be very similar to mine 

To you blah blah blah blah

Of course that's your response.  "No" and "blah blah blah" type stuff which is why I don't take you seriously.  No reason to.

[Amarok]

And it will likely be very similar to mine 

To you blah blah blah blah

Of course that's your response.  "No" and "blah blah blah" type stuff which is why I don't take you seriously.  No reason to.

No that would be yours and I'm afraid you have that backwards and yes there is no reason to take you seriously . Which is why I don't .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Of course that's your response.  "No" and "blah blah blah" type stuff which is why I don't take you seriously.  No reason to.

No that would be yours and I'm afraid you have that backwards and yes there is no reason to take you seriously . Which is why I don't .

I don't expect you to take me seriously.  You have two typical responses to anything. "No" or "blah blah blah I have refuted you."  If you won't engage material beyond that, then it's fine with me.   Anything else?

[Amarok]

No that would be yours and I'm afraid you have that backwards and yes there is no reason to take you seriously . Which is why I don't .

I don't expect you to take me seriously.  You have two typical responses to anything. "No" or "blah blah blah I have refuted you."  If you won't engage material beyond that, then it's fine with me.   Anything else?

Ni my typical response is rightly point out that your wrong and then showing it and you generally have nothing to engage that isn't refuted . Anything else ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I don't expect you to take me seriously.  You have two typical responses to anything. "No" or "blah blah blah I have refuted you."  If you won't engage material beyond that, then it's fine with me.   Anything else?

Ni my typical response is rightly point out that your wrong and then showing it and you generally have nothing to engage that isn't refuted . Anything else ?

You've been given multiple opportunities to do such.  So far it's just "no" and "nope."  That has more meaning to you than it does me, so if it's an attempt to validate yourself then you may have had some success.  To me, it's just someone running around in circles.

[Amarok]

You've been given multiple opportunities to do such

Already engaged your nonsense 

.  So far it's just "no" and "nope."  That has more meaning to you than it does me, so if it's an attempt to validate yourself then you may have had some success. 

false  even if that were all it were it's more the antique to deal with your nonsense and I'm already validated 

To me, it's just someone running around in circles.

Yup that person is you .I'm running straight and true .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You've been given multiple opportunities to do such

Already engaged your nonsense 

.  So far it's just "no" and "nope."  That has more meaning to you than it does me, so if it's an attempt to validate yourself then you may have had some success. 

false  even if that were all it were it's more the antique to deal with your nonsense and I'm already validated 

To me, it's just someone running around in circles.

Yup that person is you .I'm running straight and true .

Keep telling yourself all that. Maybe in a week or two you will have elevated yourself so that you're a super hero that has no need for logic and can determine reality by statements of "nah" and "nope."

[The Grand Nudger]

Here's a question you might want to start asking yourself, someday, Max.

Who could have cared for you so little..or in fact hated you so very much...that they would have miseducated you in such a comprehensive way as to be uinable to tell the difference between leninism, the soviet apparatus, and atheism?

Why humor a question that asserts a logical fallacy?

Here's a question for you though.  Can you name one institute, organization, or academy devoted to higher education that adheres to a position that would suggest I should accept your definition on the basis of science, logic, or speech and without bias?  If so, I would appreciate a link to their web page that mentions that standard so I can considerate it in light of your definition.

Sure, one that's already been linked in thread, not that you'd have required it.  Atheism, concerns one's state of belief in gods.  

Atheism is not leninism, or the soviet apparatus, or secularism, or humanism, or a green left handed widget..and this much probably should have jumped out at you by the simple fact of their being different words..in the same way that a cat is not a dog and one's first indication of this is that there are terms employed to distinguish between them.

Do you understand?

[Amarok]

Already engaged your nonsense 


false  even if that were all it were it's more the antique to deal with your nonsense and I'm already validated 




Yup that person is you .I'm running straight and true .

Keep telling yourself all that. Maybe in a week or two you will have elevated yourself so that you're a super hero that has no need for logic and can determine reality by statements of "nah" and "nope."

I'll tell myself it because it's true and i'm no super hero it doesn't require a super hero to refute you and both see and use clear logic to refute your non reality based points even if all it takes to do both includes the above words .

---

Why humor a question that asserts a logical fallacy?

Here's a question for you though.  Can you name one institute, organization, or academy devoted to higher education that adheres to a position that would suggest I should accept your definition on the basis of science, logic, or speech and without bias?  If so, I would appreciate a link to their web page that mentions that standard so I can considerate it in light of your definition.

Sure, one that's already been linked in thread, not that you'd have required it.  Atheism, concerns one's state of belief in gods.  

Atheism is not leninism, or the soviet apparatus, or secularism, or humanism, or a green left handed widget..and this much probably should have jumped out at you by the simple fact of their being different words..in the same way that a cat is not a dog and one's first indication of this is that there are terms employed to distinguish between them.

Do you understand?

Now watch all this will be ignored and he will go right back to square one