constantly at Christian funerals.

You seem oddly fascinated with one word in my post. This is the second thread you have started about that post of mine. Perhaps a new hobby would be appropriate.

My guess is slim to none. Once again this poster thinks he has some Major Gotcha.

Thank you Linda Richman/Mike Myers.

funeral service for the newly departed those/that words/phrase are/is not spoken.

Gee, thanks for the perspective of the 1%, had I wanted to be equally dismissively sarcastic.

'Honk! Honk!
Move your crate, bub!
Hey lady, get outta the way!"

I have poor comprehension with double speak.

And you have yours. Gil must be the president!

Who can say? Flattery, however, will get him nowhere.

I'd say it's cute, but perhaps it's bordering on unhealthy obsession.

However, I decided a bit ago to engage with him only infrequently here. I'm hoping that will ease down his interest without causing too much pain. I don't think he's my type, really, anyhow.

Please go to the nearest abused atheists shelter. They have counselors available 24/7. We can even get a restraining order from the Heavenly Court.

Is that still the number?

No, I'm in no danger, I'm sure. I have a CERTAIN BELIEF about that.

hoodwinked, bamboozled.

Oh my DOG, my head.

YMMV.

are two basic positions for atheism:

1) absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
2) belief that no gods exist.

The first position has been characterized as “soft atheism”, the second as “hard atheism”.

The difference can also be expressed as agnostic atheism vs gnostic atheism.

Certain belief that there are no gods is indeed unprovable, just as I cannot prove there are no Santa Clauses, Easter Bunnies, or Unicorns. In my experience most atheist are soft or agnostic atheists.

All atheists reject belief in deities. Some just take it one step farther.

What’s telling is the false equivocators want to focus on the subset and pretend the overlying qualifier doesn’t exist.

I can hardly wait for the op to spring his clever trap.

Hi Guillaume,
Un vrai sage sage!
Je suis captivé par toi.
Bonne Bon-Bon
💙🇺🇸🌊
imposters outta the people's house!

So your first premise is false.

Pew disagrees with you.

Confirming my observation.

Not uncommon.

the poster attempts a diversion by referencing one of his prior disasters.

So technically the answer is “yes”.

I do like order in arranging stuff and unfortunately, bc professing I am of the Christian Way, I have a tendency toward perfectionism in a lot. Which is to say I put a lot of performance on MYSELF, not others.

'We' Christians should only strive in 'excellence' when doing or performing anything for Him, in His Name and in His Spirit. We are asked to do these as being done unto Him. Even menial things like mopping the floor, doing laundry or cleaning yucky stuff.

Why'd I even say that.

Missionary and Cowgirl?

Seems like that would be a logical contradiction.

who introduced that position for intercourse to some indigenous peoples and insisted that it was the only righteous way to boink, I just consider it to be an adjective with a historical meaning. I won't discuss my own use of it, however, which has always been minimal.

I believe the earth is round. I am certain of it. I can prove it too.

Belief in deities is a good example of not.

As is quipped on the internet tubes, "saw what you did there". 😊

Somebody that resides with me just rolled in from MD earlier.

When I'm able to divulge, I may. 🦀🦐

You subtle, but elicit smiles and a heheh.

Alternatively, you misread my post.

I read your post, but canned responses are always appreciated as they demonstrate your intellectual laziness.

I understand.

You don’t

It always did. One may order either a salad or fries with that particular menu item. I have stated very clearly that I disbelieve the existence of deities. I do not believe they exist.

I do not say that I believe deities do not exist. The position of the word determines its meaning. "or" is like that. In my sentence it is an exclusionary word. Had I wanted an inclusionary word, I would have written "and."

How many times will I have to explain that to you>

Specifically:

Why are you so focused on the second part?

That is why.

And have defended that position. But the definition acknowledges the existence of hard atheists. Those are the ones with "certain belief." The atheists on this site, including MM, do not take that position. So where is the contradiction?

Now you claim he’s contradicted by other unidentified forum members.

When you get your merde all in one sock, do let us know.

Last edited Thu Jun 21, 2018, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Bye, now...at least until you call me out again as you have done in this thread. You know, of course, that callouts are frowned upon in discussion forums. Please don't continue to be rude. I will see them.

Maybe this will help Gil understand you better:

...and unbelievers are actually believers.

Gotta admire the guy's persistence if nothing else. And given his consistent behavior, there might actually be nothing else.

That it will work.

Proof.

So, a certain belief can be proved.

There is no certainty that it will work the same next time. So inductive reasoning leads to belief but not certain belief.

just like he abandons ALL his failed threads where he thought he FINALLY found something to make atheists shut up (his life-long dream).

Rather than stay and engage in dialog and LEARN about what atheists actually think (or believe!!), he runs away to start a new thread when the laughter at his latest humiliation fades away.

The name calling, the avoidance of any real dialogue, and the fact that this has been your demonstrated pattern for years.

The "no u!" Replies, "I'm rubber you're glue" "I'm not hitting you!"

Did I leave any out?

You can successfully predict that I will call you on your bullshit 100% of the time, yup!

Speaking of name calling, might want to remove that plank from your eye before you criticize the motes in others.

In the context provided above “Certain belief” is an Oxymoron.

The use of “Certain” implies an absolute known.

“Belief” implies a lack of an absolute known.