Christian inspiration

[falcon9]

You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.

If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"?  You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.

No.  Correct.  Sure, why not as such would be your objection contrary to whatever I submitted -

You continue to prevaricate, which is your choice, rather than simply answer the challenge above.  Duly noted.

- that or you would simply rewrite what I submitted and precede as if such an action had relevance.

On the contrary, you're demonstrably more adept at building strawman agruments which you can more easily pretend you're 'defeating', rather than confront my actual arguments and challenges to your specious beliefs head-on.  What's for you to fear here, ego-damage?

Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.

That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim.  Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).

It isn't at all.  

Bland denials don't refute your attempt to dodge the burden of proof requirement for making the initial claims. They do emphasize your dodging once again, however.

I can only assume that xtian means atheist, and particularly those athiest's that are only anti Christian.  Other than that I am unsure of what you are trying to say here as it sounds like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe.

Ironically, your assumption "that xtian means atheist" comes across "like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe" since my position is that atheism is neither a religion nor, a version of xtianity.

The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.

So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"?  You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.

If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --

Consult an attorney about that pointas well, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from.  An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test).  What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration.  This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls.  The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.

What are you going on here about?  

If you've lost track of your own strawman, it could be set on fire again for easier detection.

[Abrupt]

You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.

If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"?  You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.

No.  Correct.  Sure, why not as such would be your objection contrary to whatever I submitted -

You continue to prevaricate, which is your choice, rather than simply answer the challenge above.  Duly noted.

This isn't prevarication, it is simply boredom with your small minded irrelevant questions that I have answered numerous times already.  If you could demonstrate a point to your requiring an answer I would probably entertain you, but I will not simply reply to every childish question you propose for the purpose of your fishing expedition.  You really should take notes, and not just notes of the voices you seem to be imagining within your head.  Your inability to focus is becoming a great hindrance on the debate, and although I initially found your lack of concentration comical it has long since become nothing but tedious and simply obfuscation.

- that or you would simply rewrite what I submitted and precede as if such an action had relevance.

On the contrary, you're demonstrably more adept at building strawman agruments which you can more easily pretend you're 'defeating', rather than confront my actual arguments and challenges to your specious beliefs head-on.  What's for you to fear here, ego-damage?

Why don't you show proof of such claims then?  I understand how damaging it can be to your ego that I so easily defeat your arguments that you would imagine these strawmen as much as you imagine all of these other strange oddities you consistently bring up.  Consider my free lessons to you, though, and imagine the immunity you can build up after all of these spankings you are taking.  Perhaps it is already to the point that you have begun to enjoy them and thus you continue to beg for them -- much as you just did above?  Is that it?  Do you fancy the S&M treatments or something (if only it were a gag ball...).

Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.

That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim.  Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).

It isn't at all.  

Bland denials don't refute your attempt to dodge the burden of proof requirement for making the initial claims. They do emphasize your dodging once again, however.

I can only assume that xtian means atheist, and particularly those athiest's that are only anti Christian.  Other than that I am unsure of what you are trying to say here as it sounds like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe.

Ironically, your assumption "that xtian means atheist" comes across "like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe" since my position is that atheism is neither a religion nor, a version of xtianity.

The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.

So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"?  You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.

If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --

Consult an attorney about that pointas well, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from.  An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test).  What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration.  This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls.  The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.

What are you going on here about?  

If you've lost track of your own strawman, it could be set on fire again for easier detection.

I have made no strawman here, it is your unfamiliarity with legal procedures that is hindering your ability to perceive what is relevant and meaningful.  Remember the single point that entirely refutes and dismantles your insane "legal examination" of what the court ruled:  "Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.".  Even your limited ability to reason and comprehend should have little difficulty in understanding that, and it clearly proves how incorrect your amateur analysis was.

[falcon9]

This isn't prevarication ...

Just because you say it isn't, whereas the prevaricating responses, (in your own posted words in this thread alone), are somehow not evidence of prevarication?  Uh-huh. Have you looked up the meaning of that word or, just made up your own like you've tried doing with "atheism"?

... it is simply boredom ...

With what, your simplistic strawman fallacy "arugments" of attempted diversions?

... these strawmen ...

I snipped them because they bore both of us.
  

I have made no strawman here ...

Your previous "arguments" regarding the subject consisted entirely of straw.  They were set on fire and no longer appear here, (except as ashes down-thread).

That penchant you have for 'declaring victory from out of the ashes of defeat; is nearly amusing.  Have you wrestled your nuts back from those 'atheistic' squirrels in your yard yet or, do they vex you still?

[Abrupt]

This isn't prevarication ...

Just because you say it isn't, whereas the prevaricating responses, (in your own posted words in this thread alone), are somehow not evidence of prevarication?  Uh-huh. Have you looked up the meaning of that word or, just made up your own like you've tried doing with "atheism"?

I know your mental capacity is limited and you cannot comprehend much information at one time, but if you would consider the entire sentence and thought process I posted instead of just a very small introductory portion you might find your confusion to be somewhat reduced.  I know it can be difficult for someone like you (one that has poor comprehension skills), but if you keep at it you will eventually be able to understand entire sentences with ease, and thin you can move on to paragraphs.

... it is simply boredom ...

With what, your simplistic strawman fallacy "arugments" of attempted diversions?

How is me letting you know that you bore the hell out of me considered a strawman or a diversion?  What sort of paranoid conspiracy have you imagined here?

... these strawmen ...

I snipped them because they bore both of us.

You have successfully answered a question that only you are aware of.  You do realize that talking to yourself can often be considered unhealthy?

 

I have made no strawman here ...

Your previous "arguments" regarding the subject consisted entirely of straw.  They were set on fire and no longer appear here, (except as ashes down-thread).

That penchant you have for 'declaring victory from out of the ashes of defeat; is nearly amusing.  Have you wrestled your nuts back from those 'atheistic' squirrels in your yard yet or, do they vex you still?

You are seemingly unaware of what a strawman is, because if you were you would know that I haven't utilized them.  When you learn a word, you should also pay attention to learn the meaning and usage of it as you continue to look foolish to those of us that actually do know the definitions of words -- and I seriously doubt you impress those that don't either.  I declare victory when fittings.  Unlike you I have patterned myself to view both sides of debate and develop points and contingencies from both sides.  Through such methods you learn the vulnerabilities and ambiguities and weak points.  While it is true that one can never singularly be assured of a victory without surrender from the other, one can be assured of something close enough to it with the other high tails it to a place of hiding, such as your habitual obfuscation.

Why do you keep talking about nuts?  Particularly my nuts?  You first went on about me with my shirt off and then you wanted a picture and now you keep bringing up my nuts.  Is there something you are wanting to share here with the rest of us?

[falcon9]

I know your mental capacity ...

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
                                       

[Abrupt]

I know your mental capacity ...

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
                                       

Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.  You seem to think that your close guardedness and frequent attacks seem to afford you some secrecy, but you fail to realize they actually spotlight you and highlight your weaknesses.

You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious.  Speaking of trolls I found a video about you:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your specious diatribes and claims and attacks.  My religion does not blind me, it actually makes me aware of far more than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

[falcon9]

Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
                                         

You seem to think ...

Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.

You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious. 

Perhaps so however, your posting of family videos merely confirms your status as a troll.
 

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...

... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religiosu claims.

  My religion does not blind me ...

That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such?  Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.

... it actually makes me aware of far more ...

"Aware of far more" what, exactly?  Specious religious precepts?  Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause?  Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.
 

... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[Abrupt]

Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
                                         

Me posing flames?  You would try to sell that lie here?  Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.  You would accuse me, quite pathetic -- even for someone as miserable as yourself.  Once again you are welcome to speculate all you wish to, although it is doubtful you would derive anything of value from your attempts since your limited reasoning skills have thus far betrayed you repeatedly.

You seem to think ...

Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.

Predictable misrepresentation of my quote.  Really is this all you are capable of -- falsifying someones post and then attacking the fabricated strawman?  This is even a bit too remedial for someone like yourself.   

You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious. 

Perhaps so however, your posting of family videos merely confirms your status as a troll.

Well I didn't realize this was one of your family videos.  Honestly I just found it on the internet and thought the troll reminded me a great deal of you (even though he seemed to have more of an imagination than you did), but how was I to know that it actually was you -- what a coincidence.

 

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...

... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religiosu claims.

And your irrational hate is quite evident here, along with your poor ability to formulate your own words and ideas without having to steal from another's.  Yawn...

  My religion does not blind me ...

That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such?  Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.

I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand.  While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim.  You rely on your own interpretations of definitions of what faith is, and yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.  You don't possess the faith so how do you honestly think you would understand it and what is revealed by possessing it.  You are exhibiting a "flat world" philosophy in your claims and it would be completely comical if it were not so sad.

... it actually makes me aware of far more ...

"Aware of far more" what, exactly?  Specious religious precepts?  Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause?  Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.

Aware of why those such as you must engage in your attacks.  Aware of culture and history and the weaknesses and vanities of men.  Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' out of your paranoid fear and limited ability to comprehend and understand and reason.  There is also so much more I could share, if only I thought it would be of help to you.

... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

My mind is far more open than yours is.  I both accept and question my religions beliefs -- such as is given man to be curious in that way and such is expected of us to explore.  You are rigid in your beliefs and to such a degree that if you do not understand it then you dismiss it and declare it as false or 'magical' or some other silly way.  You would readily leap into the arms of some obscure pseudo-scientific theory such as "emergent phenomena" because you can reason the small steps of its introductory thoughts without every scoping the relevance it exhibits in an empty set.  You don't see that it is its own Achilles Heel -- you cannot think well enough to realize why it disproves itself in the form it is written and what would be necessary to qualify it.

[falcon9]

Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.

Me posing flames?  You would try to sell that lie here?

Posting, not "posing", (although you've displayed aspects of being a poseur).  It's not a lie since the archived evidence of your use of 'flaming insults' exists in your own words across various threads, (including this one).

Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self ...

See, that last ad hominem would be one of those 'flames' you deny, (and proceed to post, or pose).  Once again, I'm not qualified to diagnose your lies as compulsive or, pathological since that would take a first year clinical psychiatry student - at least.

... rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.

No, I've posted in opposition to such superstitious magical intercessory rituals themselves and not any particular individual.  The archived evidence of my posts exists in contradiction to your lie.

You would accuse me ...

On the contrary, your own archived words betray your lies.  Pointing your lies out is less an accusation than indicating the evidence to support that contention.
  

You seem to think ...

Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.

Predictable misrepresentation of my quote.  

Your quote was merely cut-off in mid-ad hominem to reply to your posted words in order to emphasize your lack of critical thinking skills, (much less, "superior" ones as you've egotistically and falsely claimed).

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...

... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religious claims.

And your irrational hate ...

If you're going to keep evading that burden of proof requirement for asserting your specious claims via attempted diversions, you merely emphasize your contended prevaricating.
 

 My religion does not blind me ...

That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such?  Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.

I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim

You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation.  I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence').  The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it.  Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.

You rely on your own interpretations of definitions of what faith is ...

Those aren't my "interpretations"; they're the standard definitions, (which you still don't get to cherry-pick or redefine).
 

... and yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.

That's because religious adherents, (who inherently hold blind faith, otherwise they'd have supporting evidence), don't get to redefine words to suit their religious beliefs.  

You don't possess the faith so how do you honestly think you would understand it and what is revealed by possessing it.

Your logical fallacy fails.  I don't need to own and drive a Tesla Roadster to understand that it's a car and neither does one need to 'experience' blind faith to know that it's a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence, (because none has been presented).
 

... it actually makes me aware of far more ...

"Aware of far more" what, exactly?  Specious religious precepts?  Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause?  Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.

Aware of why those such as you must engage in your attacks.  Aware of culture and history and the weaknesses and vanities of men.

Those remain vague speculations rather than delineating any specific awareness citing specific examples.  Proceed to speculate why you 'believe' that I engage in posting viewpoints which dissent from religious beliefs, (speciously designated as "attacks" when they are all in responsive reply - at most, as 'counter-attacks' to the numerous frontal attacks of religious proselytizing).  If you choose to do so, I'll choose whether or not to refute your probable specious speculations.
 

Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' ...

What's so difficult about "prayer" that you falsely accuse me of not understanding?  It's an evocation to a hypothetical supernatural entity and as such, qualifies as a magical intercessory ritual by definition.  I'm previously aware of your penchant for eschewing standard definitions and wanting to make up your own to support your blind faith however, that's not how it works unless you're delusionally-narcisstic or out of some "fear" of ego damage.

... limited ability to comprehend and understand and reason.  

Right, I'd omitted your "limited ability of comprehend and understand and reason" from your failed attempt to make "prayer" so complex that not even a primative goat-herder could understand it, (let alone someone with more intelligence than a sack of sand).  Thanks.

... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs, where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

My mind is far more open than yours is.  I both accept and question my religions beliefs --

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate either of your claims thusfar; arguing instead such irrationalities as "atheism is a religion" and not questioning that religious beliefs rely upon faith which relies upon not having substantive evidence, (in an inherently illogical contradiction).

You are rigid in your beliefs ...

I'm neither "rigid" nor flexible in something I don't have.  The ability to accurately reason is not a "belief"; it's either functional or not, independent of any "belief".  What's the functional utility of specious religious beliefs?  A false sense of "comfort" from fears?
 

You would readily leap into the arms of some obscure pseudo-scientific theory such as "emergent phenomena"

No, I'd rather continue to leap into the arms of my girlfriend however, neither weather phenomenon nor chaos theory nor fluid dynamics are "pseudo-scientific" theories because they are functional emergent phenomenon theories.

... because you can reason the small steps of its introductory thoughts without every scoping the relevance it exhibits in an empty set.

I merely presented some of the introductory steps of emergent theory because it's complexities were preceived to extend beyond the scope of an FC forum.  Your assumption that characterizes that as all I know about emergent theory is false and it does not exhibit "an empty set", (since emergent phenomenon aren't especially restricted to a von Neumann universe of pure sets).  Regardless, it's a theory with some mathematical basis, (unlike a 'g-d' theory, which has no basis other than baseless faith and a mathetically-insignificant probability of validity).

[Abrupt]

Me posing flames?  You would try to sell that lie here?

Posting, not "posing", (although you've displayed aspects of being a poseur).  It's not a lie since the archived evidence of your use of 'flaming insults' exists in your own words across various threads, (including this one).

You finally got me on something.  I misspelled posting.  Damn you win, do you want to know what your prize is?  Flaming insults?  Coming from you -- a person that actively tries to insult and injure on every occasion -- I suppose is meant as a compliment?  Unlike yourself, though, I am direct in my manner and I do not hide behind deniability as I find such cowardice common and rather petty.

Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self ...

See, that last ad hominem would be one of those 'flames' you deny, (and proceed to post, or pose).  Once again, I'm not qualified to diagnose your lies as compulsive or, pathological since that would take a first year clinical psychiatry student - at least.

That is not ad hominem.  If you are going to use words such as those, do try to know what they mean.  I haven't lied once here, unlike you who has been caught repeatedly lying and fabricating.

... rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.

No, I've posted in opposition to such superstitious magical intercessory rituals themselves and not any particular individual.  The archived evidence of my posts exists in contradiction to your lie.

If you don't understand the results of your actions then you are more of a fool than most of us think.  How could you be that ignorant if you are honest in your statement?  If you are dishonest, as I suspect based upon your habit of being so, then you are as I called a miserable sort that only wishes to inflict injury and suffering.  So which one are you then, a fool or an *bleep* as there is no other option available.   Also, because something is beyond your limited understanding you don't have to label it as 'magical'.  If everything you don't understand is magical then truly you are the most superstitious person I have ever met.

You would accuse me ...

On the contrary, your own archived words betray your lies.  Pointing your lies out is less an accusation than indicating the evidence to support that contention.

Show this proof, don't be shy with these weak accusations such as "archived words".  You honestly think that anyone would take your word over mine (or anyone else for that much)?  Your word is worthless here and if you cannot prove what you say then it is as meaningless as you are.

You seem to think ...

Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.

Predictable misrepresentation of my quote.  

Your quote was merely cut-off in mid-ad hominem to reply to your posted words in order to emphasize your lack of critical thinking skills, (much less, "superior" ones as you've egotistically and falsely claimed).

Once again, that isn't ad hominem, but at least you foolishly admitted to misrepresentation of my quote.  Your debate skills are even worse than your critical thinking abilities.  If you are going to play the game, please try to be somewhat of a challenge.

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...

... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religious claims.

And your irrational hate ...

If you're going to keep evading that burden of proof requirement for asserting your specious claims via attempted diversions, you merely emphasize your contended prevaricating.

Evading what?  You post part of my statement (because seemingly your weak mind can only ingest so much at a time) and accuse me of evading some imagined requirement of yours.  Shall I start addressing each of your words one at a time so that you can maybe keep up?  I know it is exceedingly difficult for you but for your sake at least pretend to the readers that you are at least remedial in your capabilities.
 

 My religion does not blind me ...

That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such?  Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.

I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim

You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation.  I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence').  The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it.  Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.

I have never failed to meet any burden of proof that was warranted.  You used a single definition as your burden of proof and I countered with multiple definitions in my favor -- including a definition for faith from the very book that the faith is used in.  Considering that my source definition automatically trumps yours means that you have failed to show burden of proof -- and once again your pride and ignorance betray you.  Are you so stupid as to ignore a definition provided by the original source in favor of one from another source that would be in disagreement of the original one (even knowing that the source you used also provided some that agreed with the original.  Talk about being blind you are entirely blind to not realize the foolishness of that.  That is another reason I am starting to think you really are just a common troll, as JediJohnnie suggested, because nobody could be as stupid as you seem to demonstrate.

You rely on your own interpretations of definitions of what faith is ...

Those aren't my "interpretations"; they're the standard definitions, (which you still don't get to cherry-pick or redefine).

They are interpretations and you even revealed that before when you indicated that not all of the definitions from the source you used said the same thing and so you 'interpreted' which was correct. 

... and yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.

That's because religious adherents, (who inherently hold blind faith, otherwise they'd have supporting evidence), don't get to redefine words to suit their religious beliefs.  

You are begging the question, using circular logic, and ad hominem (yes this is actually ad hominiem you are using so try and remember it if you can so that you will actually know it the next time you use the word since you failed the last 200 times or more here).  These source definition comes from the very book of this religion and as such it 'owns' the word in its usage.  It wouldn't even matter if it were redefined in its recording (it wasn't as it was well before your source definition was ever dreamed up) as it stipulates the meaning of the word and that makes it incontestable (and you the fool for trying to challenge what it means when it is told to you what it means).

You don't possess the faith so how do you honestly think you would understand it and what is revealed by possessing it.

Your logical fallacy fails.  I don't need to own and drive a Tesla Roadster to understand that it's a car and neither does one need to 'experience' blind faith to know that it's a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence, (because none has been presented).

It is you that has presented a logical fallacy.  For you cannot reveal how the wheel of the roadster feels beneath your fingers or anything about the experience.  This is what is expected from you and your limited reasoning skills -- you can only see the basics and generalities and you cannot explore into the experience and meaning of things.  You would pretend to know the taste of steak from looking at a cow or other similar nonsense and never realize just what you are missing from such a petulant position.
 

... it actually makes me aware of far more ...

"Aware of far more" what, exactly?  Specious religious precepts?  Dubious superstitious attributions of effects to some religiously-based cause?  Be specific, even though that runs contrary to your usual vageness and tangential diversions.

Aware of why those such as you must engage in your attacks.  Aware of culture and history and the weaknesses and vanities of men.

Those remain vague speculations rather than delineating any specific awareness citing specific examples.  Proceed to speculate why you 'believe' that I engage in posting viewpoints which dissent from religious beliefs, (speciously designated as "attacks" when they are all in responsive reply - at most, as 'counter-attacks' to the numerous frontal attacks of religious proselytizing).  If you choose to do so, I'll choose whether or not to refute your probable specious speculations.

Well how about this then -- aware of all the important things that you could never know, just as you revealed of yourself with your simplistic attempt to try and frame me as committing some sort of logical fallacy.  Look above and reread the revelation of your small minded accusation and you may get a glimpse of how little you really comprehend.  It is funny that you ask this question right after having proved a sound rebuttal to it with your arrogance -- I mean I couldn't have drawn the truth out of you so it is fitting that you are the one who provides the evidence.
 

Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' ...

What's so difficult about "prayer" that you falsely accuse me of not understanding?  It's an evocation to a hypothetical supernatural entity and as such, qualifies as a magical intercessory ritual by definition.  I'm previously aware of your penchant for eschewing standard definitions and wanting to make up your own to support your blind faith however, that's not how it works unless you're delusionally-narcisstic or out of some "fear" of ego damage.

Apparently everything about it is difficult for you to understand.  You call it 'magic' which means you are labeling it according to your superstitious atheists beliefs.  You should be aware of me using the definition of faith from the book that actually uses the word faith.  I can understand why you would suggest such was made up with such superstitious as you have.

... limited ability to comprehend and understand and reason.  

Right, I'd omitted your "limited ability of comprehend and understand and reason" from your failed attempt to make "prayer" so complex that not even a primative goat-herder could understand it, (let alone someone with more intelligence than a sack of sand).  Thanks.

Just because you are too ignorant to understand it doesn't mean it is complex -- that is simply your ego reassuring you that it is like that way for everyone.  Remember, you are the only one having difficulty understanding it.  Honestly, do you even think about what you post before you post it or are you deliberately trying to make yourself appear to be an idiot?  I didn't know that you were a goat-herder.  Are you also a goat roper?

... than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

The "mind" of a religious adherent is constricted by their specious religious beliefs, where a mind unrestrained by such superstitions is the opposite of closed.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

My mind is far more open than yours is.  I both accept and question my religions beliefs --

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate either of your claims thusfar; arguing instead such irrationalities as "atheism is a religion" and not questioning that religious beliefs rely upon faith which relies upon not having substantive evidence, (in an inherently illogical contradiction).

I have verily proven atheism is a religion and it is only your denial that claims otherwise.  I have also shown that your premise of "not having substantive evidence" is simply a fallacy and quite different from the actual "not requiring substantive evidence".  It is only illogical to a liar such as yourself who is so deceitful in all that he does as to never trust anything that you cannot put your hands on.  Which brings me back to wondering why you were so curious about my nuts and puts a shiver down my spine.

You are rigid in your beliefs ...

I'm neither "rigid" nor flexible in something I don't have.  The ability to accurately reason is not a "belief"; it's either functional or not, independent of any "belief".  What's the functional utility of specious religious beliefs?  A false sense of "comfort" from fears?

So you state, but can you prove this?  You certainly demonstrate contrary to this claim and you do so repeatedly throughout these forums.  Since you don't seem to possess the ability to accurately reason (as you supply this evidence all through these pages) your point is meaningless since it wouldn't apply to you -- unless your standards for 'accurately' are so trifling as to include this nonsense you put on.

 

You would readily leap into the arms of some obscure pseudo-scientific theory such as "emergent phenomena"

No, I'd rather continue to leap into the arms of my girlfriend however, neither weather phenomenon nor chaos theory nor fluid dynamics are "pseudo-scientific" theories because they are functional emergent phenomenon theories.

Okay I am now picturing a small flowery falcon9 leaping into his strong girlfriends arms while she cradles him as one would a baby (well actually I am picturing the troll from the video doing the leaping).

... because you can reason the small steps of its introductory thoughts without every scoping the relevance it exhibits in an empty set.

I merely presented some of the introductory steps of emergent theory because it's complexities were preceived to extend beyond the scope of an FC forum.  Your assumption that characterizes that as all I know about emergent theory is false and it does not exhibit "an empty set", (since emergent phenomenon aren't especially restricted to a von Neumann universe of pure sets).  Regardless, it's a theory with some mathematical basis, (unlike a 'g-d' theory, which has no basis other than baseless faith and a mathetically-insignificant probability of validity).

You misunderstand, this emergent phenomenon would have to prove itself within an empty set and none have demonstrated this.  I actually presented you a footstep introduction to how this could work and hold true to mathematics, but since this subject seems entirely avoided by the advocates of this theory it makes the theory seem dubious and weak since it avoids qualifying the very subject it wishes to solve.  It could be demonstrated to be much more but as it is now you are left with a modified abiogenesis.

[falcon9]

Unlike yourself, though, I am direct in my manner and I do not hide behind deniability as I find such cowardice common and rather petty.

On the contrary, you're constantly hiding behind specious denials of your own inverted non-logic.  Yeah, it's common, cowardly and petty of you but, I accept you as you are.

Every time someone who is in pain and grieving posts a request for prayers and support your miserable little self ...

See, that last ad hominem would be one of those 'flames' you deny, (and proceed to post, or pose).  Once again, I'm not qualified to diagnose your lies as compulsive or, pathological since that would take a first year clinical psychiatry student - at least.

That is not ad hominem.

Of course it is and your reply is another one of your common, cowardly and petty denials, (when your own words are in this very post).

I haven't lied once here ...

Technically, you've lied more than once here so, that's another lie about not lying.

... rushes in to attack and insult them and to try to make them feel worse.

No, I've posted in opposition to such superstitious magical intercessory rituals themselves and not any particular individual.  The archived evidence of my posts exists in contradiction to your lie.

Also, because something is beyond your limited understanding you don't have to label it as 'magical'.  If everything you don't understand is magical then truly you are the most superstitious person I have ever met.

On the contrary, my understanding isn't limited by specious religious beliefs as yours is and the terms "magical intercessory ritual" accurately apply to "prayer" as they do to a witch's "spell".  I suspect it's you who are unable to make the logical extrapolation because that would entail religious "prayers" being prohibited "magic". Can't have that, can you fundie?

You would accuse me ...

On the contrary, your own archived words betray your lies.  Pointing your lies out is less an accusation than indicating the evidence to support that contention.

Show this proof ...

Such proof was shown at the time of the occurances.  You denied that the evidence was evidence therefore, reproducing it for you is a waste of time, (as it simply provides you with another opportunity to deny evidence posted in your own words).  Your troll tactics fail once again.

You seem to think ...

Whereas you don't demonstrate even that semblance.

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your ...

... use of logical reasoning, as opposed to your irrational and illogical non-reasoning xtian apologetics and evasions of burden of proof to provide evidence for making specious religious claims.

And your irrational hate ...

If you're going to keep evading that burden of proof requirement for asserting your specious claims via attempted diversions, you merely emphasize your contended prevaricating.

Evading what?

 
Apply your own ad hom to yourself:

I know it is exceedingly difficult for you but for your sake at least pretend to the readers that you are at least remedial in your capabilities.

 My religion does not blind me ...

That's merely another of your unsupported and self-serving claims. What mind-blinded religious adherent is going to let their ego admit to such?  Especially when it's been reiterated that "faith" in anything without substantive evidence is, by definition, 'blind'.

I don't have to support it as it is your contention that I am blind and thus the burden of proof would rest upon you to demonstrate that -- since this is your favorite claim an demand. While you certainly do claim quite frequently that faith is blind, you have never given any proof of this claim

You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation.  I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence').  The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it.  Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.
[/quote]

I have never failed to meet any burden of proof that was warranted.  

Bull. Your reply is another one of your common, cowardly and petty denials, (plus, who died and put you in charge of deciding what's "warranted"?).  Next, you go on to tacitly admit you 'cherry-picked' your definition of "faith", (" ... in your favor").  Doubtless you'll deny that too.

You used a single definition as your burden of proof and I countered with multiple definitions in my favor -- including a definition for faith from the very book that the faith is used in.  

The source, (if "biblical"), is self-referential and therefore, circular and invalid.  Alternate sources are as 'cherry-picked' as you claim the definition I used for "faith" is.  There's at least one significant difference between them; I'm not using a religious self-referential source, ("bible"), and you apparently are.

Considering that my source definition automatically trumps yours ...

No such false claim will be considered just because you've claimed it, (once again, sans evidence).  Now, considering that source is full of more holes than a seive and more specious nonsense than a heroin addict, it can be dismissed as a reference.
 

Are you so stupid...

Ad hom; deny at will.

... nobody could be as stupid as you seem to demonstrate.

No such stupidity has been demonstrated by the content of what I've posted; your specious accusations do not constitute evidence supporting your ad hom claims.  However, your denials of posting ad homs, (after doing so repeatedly, in this post alone), do constitute evidence of your being simplistic and somewhat dim of wit, ("yes Virginia, that's an ad hom in counter-fire).

... yet when given a definition from someone of religion that has faith you discount that definition.

That's because religious adherents, (who inherently hold blind faith, otherwise they'd have supporting evidence), don't get to redefine words to suit their religious beliefs.  

These source definition comes from the very book of this religion and as such it 'owns' the word in its usage.

What a bizarre claim, especially in support of the writers of such 'religious texts' who have plagiarized previous pagan religious mythologies and now such cultural thieves "own" the word 'faith'?  Your hypocrisy would be humorous were extensive evidence of xtianity's plagiarisms not abundantly evident, (yep, that means there's evidence of it). Further, such a specious claim attempts to pre-empt previous usage of the word by non-xtians, (that's very sanctimonious in and of itself).

Tell you what though; show me xtianity's registered copyright for the word "faith" and I'll concede that they own it.
*awaiting diversionary bs from "Abrupt" in lieu of evidence*

 

Aware of why someone such as yourself that hears of something they cannot understand has to describe it as 'magical' or 'supernatural' ...

What's so difficult about "prayer" that you falsely accuse me of not understanding?  It's an evocation to a hypothetical supernatural entity and as such, qualifies as a magical intercessory ritual by definition.  I'm previously aware of your penchant for eschewing standard definitions and wanting to make up your own to support your blind faith however, that's not how it works unless you're delusionally-narcisstic or out of some "fear" of ego damage.

I have verily proven atheism is a religion ...

No, you've repeatedly claimed to do so. Merely claiming/asserting that you have, without evidence, as if it were true does not confer validity upon your invalid claims/assertions.

[Falconer02]

You can certainly choose to be dishonorable enough to fail to meet the burden of proof obligation.  I've met the burden of proof requirements for my contention that "faith" is blind by definition, ('a belief which lacks substantive supporting evidence').  The only way to invalidate that evidence is for you to prove that "faith" has substantive supporting evidence which can be accurately, (not speciously), attributed to it.  Instead, you've tried prevaricating about the definition, as if you get to randomly redefine words when their meanings don't suit your mind-blinded sophist arguments.

Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?

[falcon9]

Abrupt's trying to redefine another word now?

Apparently so however, doubtless he will deny that he's attempting redefinitions, (despite his posts where he attempts redefinitions), nor cherry-picking definitions.  Heck, if you look, you'll see that he even denies denying some things.  As they say, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
 

[JediJohnnie]

I know your mental capacity ...

No, you don't.  As for your penchant for posting 'flames' and prevarications in lieu of 'debate or discussion', they are the tactics of a common troll and rather lackluster.  I could speculate that your religious mind-blindness has resulted in your inferior critical thinking skills however, I won't.
                                       

Sure I do, you display your inadequacies here for all to see and quite frequently.  You seem to think that your close guardedness and frequent attacks seem to afford you some secrecy, but you fail to realize they actually spotlight you and highlight your weaknesses.

You calling me a troll -- now that is hilarious.  Speaking of trolls I found a video about you:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

Speculate all you wish to as that is about all it seems you are capable of with your specious diatribes and claims and attacks.  My religion does not blind me, it actually makes me aware of far more than a close minded person such as yourself could ever imagine.

That's a great video,Abrupt.That's exactly the way I picture Falcon9.

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

[falcon9]

My religion does not blind me ...

That's a great video,Abrupt.That's exactly the way I picture Falcon9.

Then estimate of your low intelligence level has been severely under-estimated.

If anyone has "blind faith" it's Falcon.His irrational,intolerant hatred of all things Biblical in his fanaticism is frightening.

How does not tolerating the blind faith excuses of religious adherents constitute "blind faith"; in what, the ability to reason instead of simply believing superstitious nonsense sans evidence?  There's nothing irrational about rationality, (hence the opposite meanings of the two terms).  Although such fanatical irrationality on the part of a xtian fundie would be more "frightening" were it not simply self-delusional.

“You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.”
-– Carl Sagan