Ponder this for a sec

[falcon9]

Hopefully,he'll be back soon.

Perhaps you'll make the same error he did and be joining him soon.

[duroz]

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
-- Gregory House (Hugh Laurie)

Hey here's a pic I have of House along with that very quote:
 

[Abrupt]

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"
-- Gregory House (Hugh Laurie)

Hey here's a pic I have of House along with that very quote:
 

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters -- especially when you contrast the atheist claims regarding Christian scripture.  It is hilarious, pure, simple, and as clear and revealing into the hypocrisy of atheism as possible.  That atheists fail to see this is even more comical -- especially those that love to talk about blind faith.  I would honestly make that into my sig -- as a jab -- if I thought the typical 'atheist' (cough) here was honest and logical enough to comprehend it.

[falcon9]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters -- especially when you contrast the atheist claims regarding Christian scripture. 

What "atheist scripture"?  There's no such thing.  Which "atheist claims"; the ones contrasting an evidential basis with xtian scriptural claims lacking any evidentiary basis?
 

It is hilarious, pure, simple, and as clear and revealing into the hypocrisy of atheism as possible. 

The only hypocrisy there is your strawman presentation of atheism as a "religion".  That's been refuted, despite your empty insistance to the contrary.
 

... those that love to talk about blind faith. 

Ironically, those religious adherents who wallow in it are usually loathe to talk about the blindness of their faith while those who aren't thusly blinded bring it up far more often.  Imagine that.

[Falconer02]

Hitch is on extended vacation.

Thank ya kindly, Kohler.

Hopefully,he'll be back soon.

Ahhhh yes. This forum needs another troll. Glad you came back out of your cave.

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters

With this logic, anyone who quotes any character that involves a basic philosophy automatically belongs to a religion. "With great power comes great responsibility." I'm part of Spider Man-ism now!

The only hypocrisy there is your strawman presentation of atheism as a "religion".  That's been refuted, despite your empty insistance to the contrary.

It's fairly obvious some cannot tell the difference between a full-blown religion and a simple hobby. But I'd recommend not rekindling this debate as there's seriously nothing to debate-- the facts were already presented numerous times and if Abrupt wishes to say abstinence is a sex position, let him do so.

[falcon9]

It's fairly obvious some cannot tell the difference between a full-blown religion and a simple hobby. But I'd recommend not rekindling this debate as there's seriously nothing to debate-- the facts were already presented numerous times and if Abrupt wishes to say abstinence is a sex position, let him do so.

"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheist' is a term that should not ever exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist'. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. An atheist is simply a person who believes that the 260 million Americans (87 percent of the population) claiming to 'never doubt the existence of God' should be obliged to present evidence for his existence-and, indeed, for his BENEVOLENCE, given the relentless destruction of innocent human beings we witness in the world each day."
--Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation"

[alaric99x]

I'm gonna miss hitch, he was a three ring circus with too many clowns.  I'll admit that I'd gotten frustrated trying to answer his nonsense and had decided to stop responding, but he did provide some amusement with his zany idiocy.  How long do we have to wait until he comes back?

[queenofnines]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters

Hugh Laurie is actually an atheist in real life, so...  What's wrong with quoting fictional sources for wisdom? You do it with the Bible, after all.

[Abrupt]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters -- especially when you contrast the atheist claims regarding Christian scripture. 

What "atheist scripture"?  There's no such thing.  Which "atheist claims"; the ones contrasting an evidential basis with xtian scriptural claims lacking any evidentiary basis?

That you say there isn't any such animal does not make that truth (especially considering your propensity for dishonesty and outright lying).   The best proof is actually your continual usage of such atheist scripture to make/support your claims/arguments.  Oftentimes that is all that you offer.  That you cannot recognize it does not surprise me as you are so blinded by your own faith that it prevents you from seeing the truth. 

It is hilarious, pure, simple, and as clear and revealing into the hypocrisy of atheism as possible. 

The only hypocrisy there is your strawman presentation of atheism as a "religion".  That's been refuted, despite your empty insistance to the contrary.
 

You have a great tendency to use words that you do not understand.  Easy examples I have pointed out to you are your usage of 'irony', 'strawman', and 'ad hominem'.  Please educate yourself a little so that you include understanding of these terms instead of just the areas that you find their usage prevalent in.  Considering the definition of 'strawman' we find that your first sentence above is absolutely false, so let us look at the second sentence.  We can quickly ascertain that your second sentence is also false as you never refuted anything -- although you weakly attempted to.  It was me in fact that overwhelmed any proof you could muster in defense of your claims by countering with equal and superior and additional proof far beyond what you could muster.  In fact if I recall you were reduced to relying upon atheist scripture in support of your contention that it wasn't a religion -- which is pretty damned funny considering the arguments you tend to make.

... those that love to talk about blind faith. 

Ironically, those religious adherents who wallow in it are usually loathe to talk about the blindness of their faith while those who aren't thusly blinded bring it up far more often.  Imagine that.

Yes, let us imagine that for an instance.  Let us reread what you have written here and realize just what you reveal (when using the correct definition of irony (which you seem to seldom do) -- but which is it -- did  you use the word 'ironically' incorrectly here or did you actually mean what it says?).  That whole sentence is as much to the point about your blind faith and hypocrisy as can be imagined and I could not imagine you revealing your idiocy any more clearly.  That is friggin hilarious, do you realize what you just said?

[Abrupt]

It's fairly obvious some cannot tell the difference between a full-blown religion and a simple hobby. But I'd recommend not rekindling this debate as there's seriously nothing to debate-- the facts were already presented numerous times and if Abrupt wishes to say abstinence is a sex position, let him do so.

What a strawman you present here (actually and correct usage of the term falcon9 so take notes and pay attention).  Let me burn down this strawman of yours rather quickly, and thus reveal your inherent dishonesty and the underlying frustration you have with yourself and particularly being able to clarify to yourself that atheism is not a religion (after all, if you cannot convince yourself how could you ever hope to convince others).  Fist off, abstinence is not a sex position and I never made such a claim (wow did that strawman of yours go up in flames awfully damned fast).  Guess what, though, and with a comical twist in my revelation I will certainly tell you that abstinence is a position on sex.  Amazing isn't it, what a little bit of clarity and logic can build in place of your strawman?  We clearly can see that atheism compared to religion is nothing like abstinence compared to a sex position so we find that in addition to a strawman you have committed a more grievous error here in simple comprehension and understanding.

I am quite sure you don't want to rekindle the debate, especially since you lost it most handily.  It is a typical and cheap tactic that I often see used by many with statements such as "the debate is over" or "it is already settled" and then trying to use that as some means to insinuate that their side won it.  Such does not work on me, though.  I am strong and dogged and have no problems defeating you again in another of these arguments.  When you rely on arguing your points like you did above you make it rather easy so please at least approach the argument logically if you wish to pick up your sword again.  As I suggested above, convince yourself first, then try for another (and if such arguments as you used here are enough to convince you then you need not bother since reason and logic would not penetrate such a thick skull as one that could even begin to formulate such an argument as you presented as being indicative of something wise).

[Abrupt]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters

Hugh Laurie is actually an atheist in real life, so...  What's wrong with quoting fictional sources for wisdom? You do it with the Bible, after all.

Yes he has made that claim, but those words are from Doctor House (do not be delusional and believe they are the same person -- after all listen to Mr. Laurie speak in his native accent).  There is nothing inherently wrong with quoting fictional sources for wisdom -- but in the case above it is a fictional statement that is also a fallacious argument that displays prejudice and blindness (this makes it just silly).  Am I to understand that you are making the claim that the people (whose words) that I quoted from the bible were not real people (or were you being prejudicial and hitting me with one of those general "you people" accusations)?

[Falconer02]

Fist off, abstinence is not a sex position and I never made such a claim (wow did that strawman of yours go up in flames awfully damned fast).  Guess what, though, and with a comical twist in my revelation I will certainly tell you that abstinence is a position on sex.  Amazing isn't it, what a little bit of clarity and logic can build in place of your strawman?  We clearly can see that atheism compared to religion is nothing like abstinence compared to a sex position so we find that in addition to a strawman you have committed a more grievous error here in simple comprehension and understanding

You're attempting to skew the example made to make it seem like something completely different than was originally stated. I'm under the impression the example that Bill Maher had made did not register with you. If this is the case, let me refresh-

- Abstinence can be seen as a position on sex (rejection of).

- Atheism can be seen as a position on religions (rejection of).

-Abstinence has no substance pertaining to sexual positions (unless you consider the lack of sexual positions to be considered a sexual position ((aka doggy style is on the same level of not having sex outright)), which is enormously illogical)

- Atheism has no substance pertaining to religions.

I am quite sure you don't want to rekindle the debate, especially since you lost it most handily.

Whatever you say. Let it be written that I defended practicality and basic terminology on my gravestone.

I am strong and dogged and have no problems defeating you again in another of these arguments.

I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books.

[duroz]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters

...  What's wrong with quoting fictional sources for wisdom? You do it with the Bible, after all.

My thoughts exactly, queenofnines....
well, actually my thought was:
Gotta love the religious scripture based on fictitious characters

[jcribb16]

  Quote from Falconer02:
"I'd rather argue with people who enjoy a friendly and honest in-depth debate rather than those who speak like super villains from comic books."

Enjoying a friendly and honest in-depth debate is something I totally agree with.  (*Abrupt - this is not directed towards you - I'm commenting on the one line of Falconer02's in and of itself.) 

There are a couple who refuse to do what you are speaking of, and instead, the debates are filled with intolerance of the other views, period, including the big words, disrespect, and name calling.  While you and I disagree on views about Christianity and/or Atheism, and we have had ups and downs (mainly over the names given to Christian beliefs,) there were still the elements of friendliness, honesty, and both sides "listening" to each other, while also asking questions, challenging respectfully, and answering with the best possible answers both sides could offer.  Although there were times, it would definitely get way sparky.  It's also when, taking a breather or cool down, other conversation takes place in the meantime, such as things we do agree with, job loss woes, seeing how someone is doing, making a lighthearted joke, etc., and then going back into the debate mode.

I just wanted to comment on that - I like the way you "said" your comment. 

[jcribb16]

Gotta love the atheist scripture based on fictitious characters

Hugh Laurie is actually an atheist in real life, so...  What's wrong with quoting fictional sources for wisdom? You do it with the Bible, after all.

I didn't realize he is in real life.  I love his show and am sorry it's ending.  I wonder if he came up with the quote in his personal life, and attributed it to his "fictional doctor" life.