-
My mind wants to destroy itself after reading these comments. So many pointless lists.
-
[quote]I'm a reasonable atheist who criticizes bad ideas.[/quote]
-
Based of your comments below, you fall under option 1
-
Edited by U124926: 1/4/2016 4:38:26 PM1. I don't have a belief here. 2. It's not shoving it down anyone's throat to reply that I am an atheist when the OP is asking whether or not I am. If he didn't want to know, then he shouldn't have asked. Nice try Lieutenant Dan, but your position has no legs to stand on.
-
[quote] Nice try Lieutenant Dan, but your position has no legs to stand on.[/quote] Haven't heard this one in a while and it fit his name. I'm actually LOLing.
-
I was talking about to the people that responded and that was a very good reference
-
Then I still wouldn't be option 1.
-
Edited by Popes Long Arm: 1/4/2016 5:41:15 AMIf in your mind that includes all of Christianity, I consider you a little female dog.
-
That's because you're mentally deficient in being unable to rationally evaluate things and so instead need to issue empty insults against things that make you feel uncomfortable or offend you since you're incapable of formulating an argument or engaging on an intellectual level.
-
[quote]you're mentally deficient in being unable to rationally evaluate things[/quote] Deficient: not having enough of a specified quality or ingredient. So he's not good enough at being irrational? You may have gotten caught up with your words, or I'm understanding incorrectly.
-
Seems more like you got caught up with my words and need to catch up with my words.
-
The way you've worded your response makes it so the quality the target is lacking in, is the inability to be rational. Double negatives cancel, this is second grade material. For example, saying [i]You're unable to be irrational[/i] is equal to saying [i]You're able to be rational[/i]
-
Actually it doesn't, you're misunderstanding the syntax, which is not all that complicated. That's okay. Did you have anything else?
-
I am not misunderstanding the syntax, if it read as "you're mentally deficient in being [b]able[/b] to rationally evaluate things" everything would be fine and the statement would be reasonable.
-
[quote]I am not misunderstanding the syntax[/quote]Correct. You'll get it eventually though. It's nothing too complex.
-
Don't bother with him.
-
It's too late, I'm too far in to just stop.
-
So, no, you don't. Aight.
-
The please, enlighten me and provide an actual argument instead of saying anything along the lines of "you just don't understand"
-
What's to argue exactly? I said a thing, you misunderstood it, your misunderstanding has now been resolved, hasn't it? So unless you had some other issue I don't see why you're still replying.
-
Edited by Popes Long Arm: 1/4/2016 5:41:44 AMAnd you're the type of little female dog that can't form a sound argument so you try to use big words to confuse people. Guess what? God is unfalsifiable by nature. That word big enough for ya? Means you can't prove or disprove him. Nothing un-intellectual about believing in something like that.
-
When you calm down and want to try to engage rationally let me know.
-
I'm ready when you are lol.
-
Alrighty, cool, so let's see your rational response to my post then.
-
Well, for starters, what's so rational about calling me mentally deficient? And even if I was, it seems pretty irrational to argue with me.