Jerry Shit - The Ultimate Collection
 

Do you gheys still believe that you lack belief, which is of course, a belief? Still saying fuck and cunt and stomping your feet loudly?

Keep it going, never give up the faith, the world needs more of those who are actively assert that they lack belief in things, it's so useful.:lol:

Man, I was kind of hoping for some kind of come back for its return, like the silly fucker had been training and planning... or at least learning a new thing... but it's the same delusional, mentally retarded shit.

Hey Sellied, we have recovered that old 900 page thread that you were so fond of.






Aww. Actually, no we didn't. Only joking. Hahahahahahah.

When in Rome...

:lol: I forgot about that, the beautiful thing is you remembered it thinking I would give a fuck. It must be sad to have so much going on in your life.

And Public School Twat, love it how anyone of you tedious fuckers who writes in here is now considered to be part of my collection,don't worry though I consider you all to be in here. I'm a very inclusive person.

Laters Gheys. This is for stoolspine, he's hip.

Sexist misogynist pig, I'm disgusted that you're still flagrantly displaying that attitude despite getting a jolly good telling off last time.

You're crazy homes.

... don't do as the Romans do?

......make sure you don't miss the forum?

...beware the Ides of March?


Nah. Someone will just cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

LOL!

Oh oh I'll take the bait.

So the atheist argument rests on "when really, it's not". Does anyone here, ever, have anything to say?

Nice try, but no.

Atheism - at least as far as I'm concerned - doesn't use "faith", in any of it's definitions.

And it sure as shit doesn't "rest on" any argument about it.

I'm shocked, I was waiting for the "because I said so" to be justified.

I'm not entirely sure where you think you see the "because I said so", but it's not unlike you to see or assert things that aren't there, so I guess I'm not surprised.


No, really. Why would you think I'm asserting anything like this?

Trying looking at what I quoted. Cryptic I know.:rolleyes:

That is cryptic... maybe, try writing in English next time.

Forget that, when does bingo start?

I would, but it appears you forgot to actually quote anything.
I know it's difficult, but do try in future to keep track of your bullshit.

Now then, back to my last question, which you failed spectacularly to answer. Where do you think you see this?

I only hope this somehow reaches you. I don't expect, just hope.

It's explained in the name: Atheist, which means one who is without a belief (or faith) in the existence of a god or God.

Hence, atheism is explicitly about nonbelief or a lack of faith. Nothing more.

Weak atheism is weak, who cares what someone does not believe in?

"When really it's not" is a statement of what is true, not what Michael lacks belief in.

You do, apparently.

It is quite true that atheism has nothing to do with faith, only the lack of faith in the existence of a God or gods. The word atheist literally mean without belief in God. The definition of the word does not speak at all to what atheists are required to believe.

Okay, I see what you've done there.

You've taken something I said about theists trying to reposition their worldview of hear-say and false assertions as being equal footing with the mountains of evidence that points away from their proposition, and tried to re-phrase it as me saying that the entire atheist position comes down as "it's not because I say it's not".

That's incredibly dishonest. My statement there was in regards to this exact type of thing. When faced with the evidence - provided here, and in other conversations with you and others ad infinitum, all you can come back with are statements. Not facts. Not "X says Y, therefore Z is unlikely". You come back with "This is how it is. I know it is because it is". Then you've held onto the one, lone sentence that looks like your argument from me, and held it out there as "being the atheist argument".

You are, unfortunately, guilty of the very thing I was writing about in that post. You are taking the evidence, ignoring it, then trying to change the argument so that it's "your word against mine".

Now, I know you. You'll say "but you haven't provided evidence", and then I'll link you to the times I have - at least the ones that weren't deleted. Then you'll say "that's not evidence". There won't be any reasoning behind why it's not evidence. There won't be anything offered to counter what I provide. It will simply be your assertion that what I provide is not evidence: we just have to take your word for it.
This is how it went last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.

Notice a pattern there? You state something as a fact, rather than provide evidence. We provide evidence, so you wave it away, hoping desperately your dancing act will distract from the facts, and instead re-issue another statement - unsupported by anything but your own word - as fact, rather than provide evidence.

You will continue to try to represent the argument as "50/50", because to misrepresent the mountains of evidence contrary to the bullshit you have splayed here is the only way your argument can hold.
To stand on it's own against everything there is that points in directions other than that precious belief you want to hold, would be to show your argument for what it's really worth - nothing.

This is the game that you must play to keep up. You have nothing to say, nothing to add, and you never have.

But please, feel free to prove me wrong.



Somehow, given your history, I doubt you will.

No, all you've done once again, is say you're right without justification. That's all the resident atheists here do.

You've never provided any evidence for anything. If you claim to have provided evidence, it's better to actually prove that you have as opposed to stating you have in a non-existent post.

If you base your entire perspective on what you lack belief in at, and then actively dwell on your lack of belief someone needs to call you out on your bullshit.

The world doesn't need more bullshit, all you lot do is contribute to it.

If you're going to quote what I write, at least address it. This is bollocks.

I don't base my "entire perspective" on the unsupported claims of others. I merely react to the claims, or ignore them when possible.

My response to your post directly addresses your claim that the atheist position is based on "when really it's not."

I'm telling you what the atheist position is: It is a rejection of unsupported claims of the supernatural, or a lack of faith in such claims.

Ahhhhhh back to Jerry closing his eyes and grabbing wildly in the dark. How can one prove a lack of faith in a God? That is all atheism is and you now know this. I have an atheist friend that truly believes we are being visited by alien invaders....without a shred of evidence. She is still an atheist and cannot abide discussions about God as much as I cannot stand her drivel about reptilian beings.

If you have something to show, prove it or shut up. That is pretty much all that is being told to you...over and over again. Just stating that there is a philosophical possibility, or that you cannot know everything or whatever is absurd as a piece of evidence. Would you accept a doctor telling you your headache was being caused by aliens from the planet Zarrgon because we simply cannot know, absolutely, that isn't the case? Go wash your bum out with mouthwash!

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003...d1_xlarge.jpeg

I think I've just proven psychic powers are real.

So not going to surprise me with any new strategies, then? Just going to keep up the same old charade that failed you last time?

Well, if you're not going to mix it up, I'm going to. Otherwise this gets very stale, very fast.


So, what would do you consider evidence?

Put it another way. You always say "you haven't provided evidence" or "that's not evidence".
Okay. Let's imagine a situation. Somebody has posted something, and you've responded something along the lines of "okay, that's good evidence. You have definitely given me evidence here, and I won't dispute that fact".

What is it that the person you're responding to has posted? What kind of thing?


$20 says it's theistic in nature, since you only respond to things that confirm your biases.

You claim to have provided evidence, I ask you to show where and then you project it's all part of my charade to ask you this?

Fucking genius. That you can't back up that you have provided evidence is your problem, that you don't admit this doesn't change it.

I agree that it's stale, this is symptomatic of the atheist position. This is why there is no point of atheism. By your definition I am also an atheist, however I don't identify as one due to it's pointlessness of saying you lack belief in what any religious person believes to be true.

Anyway, to answer your question I would need some indisputable proof of a cause for existence which doesn't depend on conjecture, or filling in some gaps which just happens to meet the same conclusion as you assumed to be true. E.g. Dawkins/Hitchens/Krauss vs. Lennox/McGrath/Craig.

Both use the same failed method to meet their desired conclusion, neither know anything.

The fact you see it as pointless doesn't stop it from being a fact. I think golf is pointless, but every day there are still thousands, neigh millions,who play the game.
All an atheist is is someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. That is it. We will laugh as theists will tie themselves in knots trying to make us believe because they do and need to know they are not the only idiots. We will ask for prove knowing this will tie people like you into knots. If someone were to show evidence of this God(s) then most atheists would become theists. The point of this thread is to see just what that evidence would be. Why don't you try and come up with something and see whether you can actually prove your deity?

What is "indisputable" to you? Like, is the theory of relativity indisputable? Is evolution indisputable?

How is rejection of an unfounded proposition pointless? If you said everyone had to obey you because of some outlandish claim of superior knowledge we would tell you to go fuck yourself same as anyone else.

Atheism is neutral regarding causes of existence., there are none so far save doing the natural baby.

But you knew that.

It will be pointless when all theists are totally benign, & not b4.

You lack belief in a god? Sure. If you claim that, then yeah you would be.

I'm still not convinced that's true about you, though. I think you profess it but don't believe it.



I didn't ask you what you would be convinced by, I asked you what you would consider evidence. Evidence isn't "Only the things that get me to x conclusion". Evidence is everything that points to A conclusion, regardless of where it takes you.

See, that's the problem with your worldview. You look at the conclusion you want and say "what do I need to get to this conclusion", so you ignore everything that doesn't get you there as invalid.

What you should be doing is looking at EVERYTHING and asking "what conclusion does all this get me to"

I never said "what do I need to present to you to say 'this all points to the specified conclusion'?".

I asked you what you would consider evidence. Because if you discard everything that doesn't get you to your conclusion as "not evidence", then you're missing out on the rest of the picture.

I knew you'd get it backwards, that's the problem with everything about you.

Can they change?

People say that I need to obey many things, which I don't. They can say what they want, it doesn't affect my life at all.

Your position is built on the lack of evidence being evidence for your own conclusion. That you disregard the lack of evidence for any answer highlights the issue in your position.

So you don't think what evidence I would accept or be convinced by are the same thing? Don't know why.

I look at everything and despite a lack of evidence, the issue of everything still requires an answer.

You will need to cite what you propose the "everything" in "everything that doesn't get you to your conclusion" actually is. I'll assume this is where you footnote a non-existent post you made sometime, somewhere in a galaxy far far away.

Yes the theories could change.

In what country do you live?

If they can change they would be disputable.

New Zealand, praise be to Allah.

In your worldview is there anything outside your mind that is indisputable? In other words, besides emotions, imagination, and logic systems such as mathematics, is there anything that is indisputable?

Well in that case, I can see why you would think,
If you lived in the United States, India, GB, or a Middle Eastern country would it affect you? If you had been at the World Trade Center and was one of the 2k people killed, would you still say you weren't affected?

Yaay - we might get a game of 50-50 bullshit bingo after all .... :rolleyes:

You have a knack for getting things backwards. It would be impressive if it wasn't so stupid.

Seriously. You don't seem to be able to get out of this idea of "I want X to be true, so I'll find all the evidence I can that points that way and only look at that". You're stuck in this rut so much that you don't seem to be able to even grasp the idea of anyone looking at things from another angle (that is to say, taking all the evidence into account and following it to a conclusion, rather than having a conclusion and finding what gets you there).



I know you don't get it. I've been telling you that. I'll say it again - you ignore evidence that doesn't get you to the conclusion you are after, rather than looking at all the evidence and letting it lead to a conclusion.


No. No, it doesn't.


No, I can't be assed looking through everything to find the countless times I or others have already told you the same thing already. Clearly that doesn't work, you'll just bury your head deeper into the sand.

Instead, I'm going to tell you a story.

This is story of Jerry.

One day, Jerry was walking in the countryside when he saw something shiny on the ground.
"wow! how lucky!" thought Jerry, "I've just found a rare ancient egyptian coin! This thing has to be worth a few hundred dollars!".
Excitedly he showed his friend, Michael.

"but Jerry," said Michael, "How could you know this is an egyptian coin? There are no egyptian markings on it."

"That doesn't mean it's not egyptian"

"in fact, there are no markings on it at all. Nothing. There is no reason to believe this is even a coin. On top of that, we live in the southern hemisphere, and there is no reason to believe that an egyptian coin would be lying around in the middle of the countryside half a world away from the country of origin"

"But there has to be an answer to what this is."

"Yes, but there is absolutely nothing here that points to it being an ancient egyptian coin"

"Oh, so you're going to base your belief on a lack of evidence? this coin didn't just come about on it's own. There has to be an answer how it got there. So you're saying this coin just popped up out of nowhere?"

"No, I'm saying that how it got there, and what it really is are two things I don't have enough information to answer - but given it's size, the type of metal, the fact that it looks like it was fabricated on a machine and that it lacks any egyptian markings whatsoever mean that it pretty clearly doesn't look like an egyptian coin."

"Yeah, but either it's an egyptian coin or it's not, so there's at least a 50/50 chance!"

"No, because all those things I mentioned before still point to it being something other than an egyptian coin. It would be increasingly unlikely for it to be an egyptian coin with every new discovery about this piece of metal that points away from that option"

"Whatever. You keep asserting that it somehow magically just showed up one day due to your lack of evidence. It's clearly an egyptian coin and I'm going to go make my fortune off it."

Jerry then went to a rare coin dealer to sell his rare egyptian coin,only to be laughed out of the shop.

Anybody still have the card?

That was a pretty incredible sample of storytelling. It was actually entertaining... thanks =D

Outside of emotions etc I don't think there is.

I don't seek to apply absolutes to justify what I think, as I don't depend on a lack of evidence to prove anything.

I lived in London in 2005 during the bus bombing, and was in Barcelona for the Madrid train bombing.

Your second question is bizarre.

People are affected by many things, I blame people who undertake the actions rather than the justification they provide to rationalise it.

The irony is I have reached no conclusion due to the lack of evidence, you dwell on it as a badge of honour for your atheism.

Yet here you are saying I want something to be true so I reach a conclusion for which you have supposedly provided ample evidence to counter, but no one has ever seen. Complete bullshit.

Tell you what try actually providing some rationale apart from depending on the lack of evidence, and the lack of your evidence is just weak.

Don't worry I didn't read your story as your attempts for non-fiction are farcical so why would I bother with some story to illustrate how you view me.

That's a tell-tale sign that you have no idea how to respond to it, in other words.
That's okay. It's hard for you to go off-script, I get it. I can see you desperately working to try to get back on that familiar argument track.

Too bad I'm not going to let you get back on your rails. Let's go off-road.



What if I told you I knew that the world was only created 10 minutes ago, and everything you knew, everything you remembered, were all false memories planted in you when you were created (10 minutes ago). I know all this because I am the one who created everything.

Do you have an opinion on this?

So You are the one true God???? It took you ten minutes??? I created it five minutes ago and implanted the idea into your head that you were the one that created everything after I sent you off with a map for some utterly hilarious shenanigans with some little people and a catchy end credits ditty.

If you say something relevant, then I will address it, your story was irrelevant.

Off road alright. http://domz60.files.wordpress.com/20...ll-of-cars.jpg

Shenanigans are the only way to go, really.



In other words
"I'm not sure how to argue like this. Please go back into that other line of argument because that's all I know how to do."


Not happening, kiddo. I guess you might as well make like a tree and fuck off then.

Or, you can try to keep up with the rest of us, maybe even learn something new.

That's rather strange and backwards to how you should probably be thinking about it. You're assuming people have perfect free will and control over themselves when they don't when you blame individuals instead of their outside pressures. In your worldview you would be blaming the starving child on the streets of mumbai that steals a sweet roll for being morally corrupt and not even look at the fact he was born in a slum, will perhaps never get out, and is afraid of dying of starvation?

Or let's take the situation of a socioeconomically deprived person in LA who never had a good family as a kid, did poorly in school, and then gets indoctrinated into a gang and believes that killing people, stealing, ect is morally acceptable because he is told his whole life that the system works against him. He doesn't even have the faintest idea, because he's been brainwashed by his environment, that killing is immoral, that you shouldn't steal, and that there is a chance to do things another way.

To be consistent in your worldview, you would have to ignore the circumstances for both of these people and simply throw them both in prison, probably for life for the second example, or perhaps execute the second person for his crimes. And then you would continue to ignore the things causing the behavior in the first place and you will keep having these people in your society, never solving the problem. And this is what we're currently doing in the United States, with one of the highest murder rates on the planet for a first world country.

Meanwhile across the ocean, Norway is developing a rehabilitation system that focuses on the causes of behavior instead of a prison system that focuses on blaming people and their rate of recriminalization dropped significantly, people in prison are happier, gaining new skills to leave crime through instructors and classes, and becoming contributing members to society.

The way you view things ignores most of how the world operates.

I mean, do you think that if Islam never existed, that two planes still would have flown into two towers in NYC on September 11th, 2001?

So what? How does that make you better than him? Why is it a badge of honor for you to claim agnosticism?

Try quoting correctly

Making up stories bores me. Tell you what write another to tell me how you feel. ;)

You need to know something to teach, so the residents here have nothing to offer.

No I assume that the cause of the Twin Towers was cultural and the dominance of one over the other. You may attribute religion as a cause if it makes you feel justified, I don't buy that as otherwise all muslims would condone it. Muslims died in it.

Are you anti-capitalism, class based system too? Tell me about your Utopia, or should I read News from Nowhere or Brave New World?

Wow you're so full of cliches. Scandinavian countries with their progressive penal system. What relevance has this to do with the example you're attempting to illustrate? That's right nothing.

Yes the world would be fabulous without religion, people would all be happy and skipping around. No crime just love.:wstupid:

It makes me better than him, as I know I don't know shit. You lot don't know that you don't know shit, that's why I'm here to help.:bop:

We have agreed many times over we don't know shit. We are unbelievers though till evidence of that shit materialises. Now do you get it. The shit we do know we can effectively recreate again and again and even control in many cases. The shit that is philosophically rammed down the throat of humanity is nothing more than piss in the wind.

Do you think Islam played no part in 9/11 at all? Do you think 9/11 would still have happened if Islam never existed?

Utopia is probably not possible. But that doesn't stop people from looking for better than we have. But I never mentioned utopia anyway. You went from giving prisoners classes to utopia. Off topic.

What I am illustrating is that there are causes for behavior and IF we don't want a certain behavior such as murder to occur, than we can change the causes and therefore change the behavior. Do you believe this or do you not believe this?

I never said anything close to that. And if I did illustrate a utopia at some point if we got rid of religion, then please point it out. I think the world will simply be better without religion- not perfect.

Atheism is an acknowledgement of disbelief, not a claim of knowledge. We all know that. Why don't you?

So you come here to claim nothing? How wonderfully pointless!! But do go on....

No, your assumption is incorrect. The atheists who come here usually do so to assert their disbelief or skepticism in a longstanding and prevalent claim that a god is in control of the universe. They also come here to meet other atheists who share their lack of faith in that claim.

Coming to a place to actively assert your lack of belief in something is a fruitless activity. Perhaps it's some form of penance you feel you owe your past, who else would bother.

It's even more fruitless when you do it, then try to tell others they don't not have a lack of belief.


(that's a double negative just for you. I know how much you don't not like your double negatives)

It's only pointless as you devoutly consider your lack of belief to be passive.

It's the quote that keeps on giving, apparently.

You struggle with no conclusion. No conclusion also includes that which you dismiss without knowledge of what is.

Enter leprechauns....you guys are so funny.

The words you type are utterly baffling. They don't make any sense. It's as if you don't know what it means to be religious or to be an atheist or the difference between types of atheism.

I'm going to assume Michael's quote of you is legitimate. If that's what you actually said, "The irony is I have reached no conclusion due to the lack of evidence" - that is called implicit weak atheism. You are an implicit weak atheist if that is true. Now if you think there shouldn't be a word that describes "not reaching a conclusion due to a lack of evidence" then that's another matter. But you are an implicit weak atheist by the definition while most of RAF I'm assuming is explicit weak atheist with maybe a few being explicit strong atheist.

We come here to assert a lack of belief in a fairly specific and prevalent claim. It's not for penance that we show up here. It's for commiseration, which is not at all a fruitless endeavor. Of course, the good will that we extend to each other is often interrupted by the rampant and relentless trolling of others.

But that has always been the price of admission here.

For context.



Also, by all means try to explain to him how not believing puts you into that column, but I doubt you'll succeed. It's been done before, aleit in a thread that was ultimately deleted some time ago. If I remember correctly, the response is something like "I don't believe, but I don't not believe" (hence the comments about double negatives). He doesn't learn, refuses to learn. Only wants to argue.

You can call me whatever you want. I don't identify as an atheist, the constant redefining of atheism to granular levels lacks any actual value. By virtue of that all people would be some form of atheist, so you render the word useless. For example, Christians don't believe Allah is god etc. I'm talking about being agnostic towards how existence came to be.

"You struggle with no conclusion. No conclusion also includes that which you dismiss without knowledge of what is." means you feel you must decide, but you have no knowledge of what to decide and why. Strangely you dismiss concepts without any tangible idea of what you're dismissing.

You attempt to appear knowledgeable despite the odd contradiction of admitting you don't know. Makes no sense. Sure you can claim atheism, based on what a Christian claims, but who gives a fuck? Most people have gone beyond that simple responsive stance.

You have nothing to teach.

If it's prevalent where you live and you struggle with it, I suggest you leave.

Having lived in the UK and Oz there's barely a whimper from theists, so I have no idea what commiseration those who come here from those countries come here for.

There is so much wrong with what you just wrote, I am unsure where to begin.

Let's start with

Why the fuck should he? To imply that HE is the one that should leave if the situation is to imply that he is the one in the wrong, and subsequently that those imposing said situation are implicitly, and wholly, in the right. It's giving them a free pass to say or do whatever they want in a religious context.

That's like me walking behind you in the street and pushing you from behind every once in a while, and when you complain someone else tells you "Hey, if you don't like it, walk on the other side of the street".
Would you move to the other side of the street? If you wouldn't, then fuck off with your bullshit here.




Secondly

Having not lived in the UK, I can't comment on that, but being an Australian citizen I'll tell you that's full of shit, also.

It's true, there is less than in America, but "barely a whimper"? No. In primary school, from years 1-6, we had a weekly mandatory-unless-your-parents-signed-you-out-of-it Scripture class, where a "community volunteer" would come in and was given free-reign over impressionable children to preach about the bible.

But hey, that's barely a whimper.


Until last year, the Federal Government had a policy that funded religious chaplains to work as in-school social workers, rather than trained, secular professionals.

Again, I can barely hear the whimpering religion over the sound of all that secularism.


Our previous Prime Minister may have been openly atheist, but she had also openly declared that she would not support gay marriage because it went against the bible.

Whimper, whimper, whimper.



An embarrasingly large amount of our Federal Funding for schools goes to Private Schools - which is made up almost entirely of Religious Schools.
In fact, in the recent State Election where I live, one of the parties ran with an election promise to remove a portion of funding from public schools in the state to give to private schools - of which 100% in the state are religious in nature.




Military ceremonies held on government owned ground, run by government-funded bodies (I'm talking the Australian War Memorial here), events at which school children are often invited to attend (including ANZAC day ceremonies, amongst many others), are always led with Christian prayers, and ended as such.


And this is just the start of it.


No, you're right, we have nothing to protest about in Australia. :rolleyes:
Or maybe you think that's all fine, and we should just leave? Perhaps I could come over and see you, Jerry.


Or perhaps you can just fuck off with your bullshit.

Am I harming you by posting here? If so, how? I don't impose my atheism on anyone outside of this forum. I respect the right of others to live within the strictures of their own religious values so long as they are not imposing those values on me and unwilling others.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to mind your own business and avoid this forum if my commiseration with others here bothers you?

Apparently, they disagree with your assessment of the situation in both the UK and Ozzie Land. Perhaps, you, for your own personal reasons, are tone deaf to the impositions and slights that they perceive as atheists in their respective home countries. If you truly have no idea what they're bitching about or what they're commiserating over, you might be the one engaged in a fruitless mission here.

There's your typical melodramatic first sentence.

If he's in the minority and being persecuted or imposed upon and doesn't like it, he should leave. It's very simple. Right and wrong don't enter the equation. If you really feel like launching a crusade (pardon the pun) maybe go to Afghanistan and oppose the Taliban.

You and your simple analogies, if you're getting hit by multiple people constantly then most people apart would eventually leave. Do you try to get on a train when everyone gets off too?


Miy kids are taught the same thing, I've told them that's what some people believe. That's right it's a whimper. Good example though:thumbsup:


The Chinese are also very anti-gay as well, your implication of religion as a cause is simple.


If you want, you'd probably bitch about nothing over here as well


You really scrape with barrel with your dubious examples, good on your for trying though. Never give up your misdirected anger.

Of course you're not harming me. I dislike the ideology that atheists espouse, as it ironically, adds to the mix of beliefs.

This forum is a good place for me to state how your form of commiseration is bullshit. I'm all for equality, sexual preference, race, sex but you lot take the piss and place all ills on the religious. It's an all too an easy out.

I'm tone deaf to white-noise, yelling while saying nothing is bollocks.. You guys have nothing to offer, but say it all too loudly.

Sadly all too many jump on the popular bandwagon without much thought of what they're getting on.

Okay. Then with your permission, I will ignore anything you have to say from here on out.

No idea what you're on about. If you want to ignore me, do it, you've never chosen to do that before.

So to recap, (Jerry wont argue with me as he know I am able to crush him like a grape), We don't believe, and laugh at people who do, as ,well as point out the dangers of the people who do. And that is bad how???????? Or different to a football forum where Man U fans rip the piss out of Liverpool fans, often with far less reason than we have for piss ripping here.

That is other than true.
It would be like manure & the shoplifters ripping the piss out deluded religiots more like. I don't see us as rivals to religion in any form.

Atheist = More than a Team

Just a forum analogy. I don't see an atheist as a team member, though am clearly on their side when discussing the utter banality of religious belief. I may even agree on other topics too lol.

I love your inane interludes - they're pointless rants.

Crushing...again.

See, total ownership.

I must admit you make me wonder whether you realise how pointless you are, and your posts are just a play on that.

I must admit I wonder how you manage to put on clean knickers everyday.

Still owned, by me, like I own my Spiderman coffee mug.

Only because you are on this forum.

You placed atheist on the same playing field as the many religions, something they are constantly implying is the case.

Yeah but total ownership though, kinda like how men own women in your eyes.
Whatever happened to those bitches, did they finally realise their virtual place?


I don't imply it, I say it. I don't know anyone manages to describe atheists as a group despite them all managing to believe the same things, and manage to congregate in places like these.:lol:

Hmmmmnot sure I did Dogpet. I just highlighted that we, as a group, share the disbelief in a god and that is all. Hence why I would likely stand by you against a theistic onslaught, yet have nothing to do with your choice of football team.