Search results

It's also a rather crap translation:

If the religious were rational, there'd be no religion. And while evolution does not rule out a god, it does rule out a literal genesis god or in fact a Christian one. If evolution is true, Adam and Eve did not exist, they did not fall from grace, sin did not enter the world and therefore...

If you think you might be blocked, try this: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=venomfangx I get, "You may not subscribe to someone who has blocked you." Lying fuck. EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAKlX1QsJY Ah, I take that back, he's in the process of doing it, he's not...

:lol: ... wait ... oh fuck you're serious :roll:

Re: Hare Krsna... Please get out... [Atheist Book Store Conc Two suggestions: 1) Have a book store based on reason, logic and truth (without any annoying philosophy books asking what those words 'really mean'). 2) If you really must have an atheist/anti-theist book store, then call it Theism...

Re: Evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. (no reall Evidence atheism is correct? How can a lack of belief be correct? You could have evidence that anti-theism or theism is correct, though I don't know what would be exactly.

The prefix 'anti' has two meanings: 1) opposed to 2) opposite of For example, someone who is anti-abortion is opposed to abortion, and having sex with them may be an anti-climax (Carlin anyone...?). The latter of course does not refer to being opposed to climaxes, rather just the opposite of...

Re: Atheism is the lack of belief in god... QualiaSoup's tak I think it was just simply that 'guilty' or ' not guilty' were shown as G and NG which also fitted 'god' or 'no god'.

Something like 99.999% of all species are extinct.

Sorry, but the majority is wrong in this case, and if you want to avoid confusion, then you should adopt your position of conformity to the population you're talking to, therefore, on this forum, you should be agreeing with us.

My question is not what is your argument for using the dictionary, but rather what arguments have the authors of the dictionary presented that makes their definition better than mine?

Argument from authority again I see. Still haven't answered my main query, I'm guessing because you haven't got a satisfactory answer, what arguments do they have for their definitions that tops mine? I know, I just said as much, "Also, having used the definition you provided of an agnostic...

And thus we boil down, once more to my question to you, what arguments have the authors of the Oxford dictionary given you that convinces you to use their definition over mine, or that of any other dictionary? Also, having used the definition you provided of an agnostic, I've shown agnosticism...

I do believe so, and you believe yourself to be correct, and most people in most things they do, believe themselves to be correct, however, most people are also able to change their minds when sufficient evidence is presented to them. Thus far I have presented arguments for my definitions and...

This is not that complicated, I really don't see how you're confusing this and that seems to be the growing consensus here. I do stand by what I have said, in fact I will repeat it, atheism is not an evidence based position, atheism is a lack of theism, a lack of belief in the existence of a...

...I know what a dictionary is. So I write book, put the word 'dictionary' on the front, and you'll believe what it says? Or how about another dictionary that agrees with me, does that make yours wrong? What argument has Oxford made that convinces you of it's definition over any other dictionary...

This is not a response to the question, "What arguments have they given you for their definitions?" perhaps you could answer it. You don't have to confuse people, just clarify what you mean, but the fact is that beyond 'it says so in my book (the dictionary)', which sounds scarily similar to...

What arguments have they given you for their definitions? You can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. So your concept of the scale having agnosticism in the middle of atheism and theism is patently wrong. One can believe something, say the existence of a deity...

This is a variation on an argument from authority. I've given you my basis for the correct definitions of these terms, Oxford has given you nothing. Granted, there may be more reason to trust a respected institution over a stranger, but that doesn't cut it. I have an argument, they have nothing...

Thank you, but I feel I should ask, if you know the dictionary definition to be wrong, why do you still accept it? And now for a parodical summation of the dictionary definition: