Christian Hang out

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Wrong, you're being ignorant? Why? You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. I'm not surprised. There are guidelines. Get over it. In gnostic and strong atheism. You called yourself a strong atheist and you don't even know what the hell it is.

You basically shouldn't even be ALLOWED to post about this issue. You're obviously incredibly uninformed.

Weak atheism.

Who says they're correct? They're not trying to be RIGHT about something. The guidelines indicate to help your fellow man and to live your life. I have repeated myself for like the fifth or sixth time now.

Yes, it is. Strong atheism was first, along with gnostic. Weak came last, because of the modern day. The people who BUILT the philosophy you follow generated these guidelines. Being an atheist isn't about insulting religion and doing what you want. The philosophy isn't that simple. If you STILL think it is and if you STILL think Atheism doesn't that guidelines, you should quit this debate while you're still suffering minimal loss.

No, no, no . . . Your belief is wrong.

Yes, I did say that. It is wrong. You do not know he does not exist. You have no way of knowing. You THINK he doesn't exist. You cannot KNOW that he does not exist. It's an impossibility.

These rules and guidelines that you keep talking about is something that a bunch of like-minded Atheist's came up with, it is something that they wanted to give to them selves and show to others as to what they believe in and what it is that there about. All these different "types" of Atheists are just like minded people grouping together and giving them selves their own set of rules because it fits their own personal beliefs and values much the same as all the different types of Christianity.

You again and again prove your ignorance of this and trying to "prove" how superior and knowledgeable you are on all subjects. Sometimes I should just slap myself for trying to have a meaningful discussion with you, you're arrogant and self-righteous attitude is tiresome and boring. This is not me being arrogant or self-righteous; this is me just saying what everyone else here thinks. If I'm wrong someone else please tell me that I have misread him.

[Sorgo X]Insert "oh you can't just leave it at that[/Sorgo X]

[pittman]Done[/pittman]

Originally posted by ThePittman
No you are wrong again, and showing your ignorance of what Atheism is.

Stop repeating what I'm saying. You're barely hanging on to the proverbial iron bar in this debate. No joke.

First of all I never called myself as a Strong Atheist; I said that you COULD call me that because of the way that I think about it. I don't call myself any "type" of Atheist because to me there is only one, and Atheist. I didn't read any rules or guidelines to realize that there is no God, I looked around, read and talked to people of all faiths and with reason and logic came to this conclusion even before I knew what the word meant.

The following is you calling yourself a strong atheist and then after contradicting yourself by describing a weak atheist:

If anything you could call me Strong Atheist because it not simply that I don't believe in god but that I know that he can't exist but I do not have rules and guidelines to live my life by.

That's all. Hahaha.

These rules and guidelines that you keep talking about is something that a bunch of like-minded Atheist's came up with, it is something that they wanted to give to them selves and show to others as to what they believe in and what it is that there about.

No, no, no, no. The people that created the philosophy you believe in made these guidelines for something to support their philosophy other than their blunt disbelief in a superior entity. The whole philosophy is: Don't believe in god, respect your fellow man and strive in this lifetime.

All these different "types" of Atheists are just like minded people grouping together and giving them selves their own set of rules because it fits their own personal beliefs and values much the same as all the different types of Christianity.

Oh my god, you said "Rules" again. Do you just generally have a listening disability? GUIDELINES, not rules.

You again and again prove your ignorance of this and trying to "prove" how superior and knowledgeable you are on all subjects.

No, stop labelling me out of frustration that you're uninformed about what you follow.

Sometimes I should just slap myself for trying to have a meaningful discussion with you, you're arrogant and self-righteous attitude is tiresome and boring.

Maybe if you slap yourself, you make knock some damn sense into yourself.

Every time we debate, your pattern is the same. You avoid most of my debate and just express your own opinion without even expressing enough care to reply to my arguments. You're just pissed off because I'm disagreeing with you. Get your act together and debate properly.

This is not me being arrogant or self-righteous; this is me just saying what everyone else here thinks. If I'm wrong someone else please tell me that I have misread him.

You're saying what others think? You see, I usually say things based on what I think because I'm my own purpose. I guess that is literally just me, then.

Dude, you've misread me several times. Either that or you're subconsciously choosing not to listen to me. I can tell you're not purposely ignoring me, or this debate would've ended long ago.

You're just not being very aware.

[Sorgo X]Insert "oh you can't just leave it at that[/Sorgo X]

[pittman]Done[/pittman]

Escapism shows cowardice, Pittman.

Im a normal catholic that belives that everyone has the right to worship any deity any way they want, that the earth is billions and universe trillions of years old. I generally accept ALL theorys about our origin. Except creationism..since thats just a load of horse tripe

Originally posted by Sorgo X

....deleted Sorgo X BS.....

Escapism shows cowardice, Pittman.

You have done nothing but argue with almost everyone since you have come here, you have said that you are smarter and that no one here is worth debating. You have been proven wrong on so many occasions by not only me but many other people and just leads me to believe that you still are a Troll. Hell you even argued about how to give me credit for the sig that I made for you, wish I have never done that. I spent my time to create something for you because you were new to the forum and asked nicely then you go and belittle my time and work by b*tching about how to give me credit for the sig. This just goes to show your mentality and values.

So call it what you wish but I'm washing my hands of you, I’m sorry for trashing this thread with dealing with this BS. Now I will just start to have fun pitt_shifty

I think that was a smart move ✅

Originally posted by ThePittman
No leaving this debate with you is a sign of intelligence; this is the last I have to say on this matter and to you. Atheist is a concept, no one invented or created it, man gave it a name but ever since the creation of the belief in god and religion the opposite has been there which is Atheist.

No, It's a sign of how utterly ignorant you are. No one created atheism? Holy f*cking christwagons. This just completely pushes it. Please, tell me this frank display of stupidity is some ridiculous joke, Pittman. PLEASE!

I've put this down into layman terms for you, I've said it several times and here it comes ONE LAST TIME so you can realize this.

You're wrong. You had no idea what you were talking about and please allow me to systematically destroy your shoddy half-assed mess you WANT to call a debate.

- You said Atheism had no rules after I repeatedly agreed with you, stating there was guidelines.
- You then tried to tell me there was no guidelines, in which you were wrong again.
- I explained the concept and different branches of the philosophy of Atheism. I told you there was Strong, weak and gnostic.
- You proceeded to ignore me, even calling yourself a strong atheist AFTER DESCRIBING yourself as a weak atheist.
- You're back again, saying that a philosophy CREATED BY MEN was .... Never created? Hell, you said that this CONCEPT was never CREATED.

Your time spent in this thread was time unworthy of wastage. You have NO CLUE what shit strolls out of your mouth when you speak, and this thread throws the cherry on the sundae.

This part coming up kind of pushed it with me.

You have done nothing but argue with almost everyone since you have come here, you have said that you are smarter and that no one here is worth debating.

Find a quote of me saying "I am smarter" or saying that I'm more intelligent. The MOST I've done is hypothetically patronize people during debates as a rebuttal for insults and yet I still haven't said I'm smarter than anyone here. If I did, it would clash with my beliefs. When in defense, I do not let insults slide. I usually come back with something.

There are *FEW*, and I mean *FEW*, here that are actually worth debating. Most of it is escapism tactics, pointing out flaws to kick off meaningless debates and bickering. I participate for laughs, usually. If something collides with my opinion or perspective, I also defend it and fight against that person.

You have been proven wrong on so many occasions by not only me but many other people and just leads me to believe that you still are a Troll.

No, these are nothing but irrelevant semantics. This is why you cannot debate. You confirmed my previous point with the above quote. Why? All you know how to do is state how someone has been wrong in a previous occasion. I haven't been wrong much (Except for when people point out my spelling mistakes or syntax errors. I don't do it back because I actually contain respect). You just think I have. The majority subconsciously blinds you. Why? You lack the awareness (Which I mentioned and proved in a previous thread, in which you ran again) for debating. That's that.

You just propped yourself, by the way. There hasn't been an INSTANCE where you've contained the organized or essential capability to actually "out debate" me. This is not me boosting my ego, this is me delivering the truth to you on nothing more than a silver platter itself.

Let's not get into the logical fallacies as well (In a previous thread, you admitted to using a logical fallacy while trying to make a point. 😐 Oh wait, that was THIS one!) because you've committed so many, you should be restricted from debating for the rest of your life. I know appealing to the majority is your pick of them. A favorite, so to say.

Hell you even argued about how to give me credit for the sig that I made for you, wish I have never done that. I spent my time to create something for you because you were new to the forum and asked nicely then you go and belittle my time and work by b*tching about how to give me credit for the sig. This just goes to show your mentality and values.

I did this:

Vegas wrote on Dec 11th, 2006 06:48 AM:
NICELY DONE!

You will recieve credit and I thank you oh so much!

I still you think you're honestly an awesome signature crafter, Pittman. I thanked you for your work and credited you for it. The ironic thing is; You were whining about the credit I gave you, which is the same I give for every other signature creator . . .

Over size seven text, thanking the creator for their time and work.

I did that, but YOU (Not me) decided to b*tch about the credit I had handed you.

This makes you ignorant AGAIN.

By the way, that whole signature credit ordeal and the past debates are irrelevant to this argument, which goes hand in hand with the rest of the shit you usually come up with as a last leg to actually stand and attempt to debate with me.

All those years of experience through age, and you've learned so few things. You must feel practically uninformed, but I doubt you'll feel that way. Arrogance tends to boost how people feel about themselves.

So call it what you wish but I'm washing my hands of you, I’m sorry for trashing this thread with dealing with this BS. Now I will just start to have fun pitt_shifty

Yay, no more one paragraph bullshit escapist posts to spew about irrelevant personal problems against me and showing how much you really do suck at debating.

Gee, there goes my sleep tonight.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I think that was a smart move ✅

You would.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
No, It's a sign of how utterly ignorant you are. No one created atheism? Holy f*cking christwagons. This just completely pushes it. Please, tell me this frank display of stupidity is some ridiculous joke, Pittman. PLEASE!

I've put this down into layman terms for you, I've said it several times and here it comes ONE LAST TIME so you can realize this.

You're wrong. You had no idea what you were talking about and please allow me to systematically destroy your shoddy half-assed mess you WANT to call a debate.

- You said Atheism had no rules after I repeatedly agreed with you, stating there was guidelines.
- You then tried to tell me there was no guidelines, in which you were wrong again.
- I explained the concept and different branches of the philosophy of Atheism. I told you there was Strong, weak and gnostic.
- You proceeded to ignore me, even calling yourself a strong atheist AFTER DESCRIBING yourself as a weak atheist.
- You're back again, saying that a philosophy CREATED BY MEN was .... Never created? Hell, you said that this CONCEPT was never CREATED.

Your time spent in this thread was time unworthy of wastage. You have NO CLUE what shit strolls out of your mouth when you speak, and this thread throws the cherry on the sundae.

This part coming up kind of pushed it with me.

Find a quote of me saying "I am smarter" or saying that I'm more intelligent. The MOST I've done is hypothetically patronize people during debates as a rebuttal for insults and yet I still haven't said I'm smarter than anyone here. If I did, it would clash with my beliefs. When in defense, I do not let insults slide. I usually come back with something.

There are *FEW*, and I mean *FEW*, here that are actually worth debating. Most of it is escapism tactics, pointing out flaws to kick off meaningless debates and bickering. I participate for laughs, usually. If something collides with my opinion or perspective, I also defend it and fight against that person.

No, these are nothing but irrelevant semantics. This is why you cannot debate. You confirmed my previous point with the above quote. Why? All you know how to do is state how someone has been wrong in a previous occasion. I haven't been wrong much (Except for when people point out my spelling mistakes or syntax errors. I don't do it back because I actually contain respect). You just think I have. The majority subconsciously blinds you. Why? You lack the awareness (Which I mentioned and proved in a previous thread, in which you ran again) for debating. That's that.

You just propped yourself, by the way. There hasn't been an INSTANCE where you've contained the organized or essential capability to actually "out debate" me. This is not me boosting my ego, this is me delivering the truth to you on nothing more than a silver platter itself.

Let's not get into the logical fallacies as well (In a previous thread, you admitted to using a logical fallacy while trying to make a point. 😐 Oh wait, that was THIS one!) because you've committed so many, you should be restricted from debating for the rest of your life. I know appealing to the majority is your pick of them. A favorite, so to say.

I did this:

I still you think you're honestly an awesome signature crafter, Pittman. I thanked you for your work and credited you for it. The ironic thing is; You were whining about the credit I gave you, which is the same I give for every other signature creator . . .

Over size seven text, thanking the creator for their time and work.

I did that, but YOU (Not me) decided to b*tch about the credit I had handed you.

This makes you ignorant AGAIN.

By the way, that whole signature credit ordeal and the past debates are irrelevant to this argument, which goes hand in hand with the rest of the shit you usually come up with as a last leg to actually stand and attempt to debate with me.

All those years of experience through age, and you've learned so few things. You must feel practically uninformed, but I doubt you'll feel that way. Arrogance tends to boost how people feel about themselves.

Yay, no more one paragraph bullshit escapist posts to spew about irrelevant personal problems against me and showing how much you really do suck at debating.

Gee, there goes my sleep tonight.

You would.

Yeah, this debate has well overstayed its welcome.

Originally posted by Alliance
Woah. Its simply clear that RELIGION held science back. Religious people can still make progress.

Religon has also contributed alot to science as well. I dont think religon is really responsible for holding back science its just evil people making an excuse.

It could be even argued that sometimes scientists can even hold back progress when they dont think about the consequences of their actions.....dont even know why im talking to you anyway.

They didnt have to wait before they dropped the nuclear bomb to see that it was bad.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah, this debate has well overstayed its welcome.

I agree.

Originally posted by ThePittman
pitt_stfu 😛

LOL!

Originally posted by Alliance
Historically yes. Present day? No. Religion just ended up in the Moral Crisis. Religion got slowly drowned out by the Renaissance. The solutions to the Moral Crisis spurred the enlightnement which was driven on atheistic, or at least non-religious principles. Look what the enlightenment did.

Hint: (starts with Industrial and ends with evolution).

Originally posted by silver_tears
I'm curious who these smartest people are?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Religion still changes the world. It is losing influence in the Western world, but in nothern Africa and the Middle East it is one of the principle driving forces. But I know you know this.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Francis Bacon, Louis Pascal, Linnaeus, Newton, Tesla, Pauling etc. were all Christians. There are many others.

Which begs the question, "Were they 'smart' because they were Christians, or in spite of being Christians?"

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You say that like it's a good thing.

Which begs the question, "Were they 'smart' because they were Christians, or in spite of being Christians?"

I actually would argue that some of them were advantaged by the belief in a perfect creator. Einstein was definitely motivated by that belief.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Take it how you will.

I actually would argue that some of them were advantaged by the belief in a perfect creator. Einstein was definitely motivated by that belief.

How do you know that?

It's stupid to compare this, and debating against either X or Y is showing prejudice.

Both atheist and religion have incredibly intelligent and it's actually a very idiotic maneuver to compare the two.

Psssst.

😈 I am the devil

Originally posted by K.Diddy
😈 I am the devil

Yeah, I don't think so.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Take it how you will.

I actually would argue that some of them were advantaged by the belief in a perfect creator. Einstein was definitely motivated by that belief.

Einstein did not believe in your god.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Einstein did not believe in your god.

Too bad you're wrong. Einstein was religious.

What of the times when you can argue religion in the OTF 🙄

Originally posted by AOR
What of the times when you can argue religion in the OTF 🙄

Syntax FTW. 😐