Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 25, 2007 @ 5:52 pm

I see you have chosen to ignore facts, reason, and logic and go back to your “the dictionary says I’m right” arguement.

Pete comes in with a logical, well thought out (and documented) arguement and how does Bart respond?

by calling him names.

Bart, instead of wasting my time with facts, logic and reason, I will simplify this for you. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just because you repeat the same argument over and over again doesn’t make your argument any less incorrect.

Just because you call people names, doesn’t make you correct.

Just because you quote other people’s incorrect beliefs doesn’t make your contentions anymore plausible.

You are simply wrong.

You ignore fact and reason. You quote your “expert” while ingoring the quotations of others. You ignore anything which proves you wrong and respond to it in the childish manner of name calling.

and most ironically, you think you are the one being attacked! LOL! You consistently berate people, yet you think you are the one being attacked? Not only are you wrong, you are delusional. You think you are bartlebee the Great, defender of your own little version of the “truth”

Why don’t you go back and read posts 1664 and 1665. Pete makes a wonderful argument. Instead of calling him names, why don’t you respond to it in a more adult manner? And why don’t you read my criticism of the HuffPo commenter? You will see your supposed expert has done nothing more than made up a new word and then based his arguments around this. While I imagine you probably think fabricated facts are entirely acceptable, the general population tends to think otherwise.

Enjoy your christmas holiday!

Personally, I’m a pastafarian. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you all.

Game, set, and match to “pete”.

See ya in the funny papers, sh!t-stain.

A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism […] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter […].

nor have you explained why you are free to discard half the definitions in the dictionaries you have quoted. You have failed to explain why definitions like these:

Richard Watson:
Well-known for his attacks on various freethinkers, including Thomas Paine, Watson states in his 1831 book A Biblical and Theological Dictionary:

Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms … signifying without God.

Robert Flint:
In his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories, Flint notes:

The atheist is not necessarily a man who says there is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. …every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.

In a later book, Agnosticism, published in 1903, Flint said much the same thing again, concluding with: “The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less. (I’ve always loved that one.)

Thomas Chalmers:
In his book Natural Theology, Chalmers states:

Judging from the tendency and effect of his arguments, an atheist does not appear positively to refuse that a God may be. …His verdict on the doctrine of God is only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven. He is but an atheist. He is not an anti-theist.

carry less weight than those provided by others. Can you form a simple argument to prove that you’ve read, and understood, the material that supports my contentions? If you wade back through your dissertation, you will find that you have already conceded to them, though, you have always managed to recant. Once you addressed the “weak atheist”, “strong atheist”, debate you satisfied me on that point. You also acknowledged you depended on the “narrow” definition of atheism.

Once you conceded those points (I’m curious, were you lying when you made those concessions, or, when you recanted?) all I’ve been doing is providing an occasional contradictory definition, and taunting. Just poking your cage.

I might add that after a quick glance at the other thread (all I could stomach) I’m not sure I would crow about “Bruce” agreeing with you. He might view his comments in a slightly different context than you. And I’m still waiting for evidence of me “mocking people’s religious beliefs”. While you’re at it, why don’t you come up with one instance of my “arguing with the dictionary” or any claim of knowledge re the existence of deities.

Indeed BAR-BEE-TROLL, you better get your imagination lubed up. You’re going to have to create pretty effective “evidence” if you desire to prove you are anything but a smug, lying, sh!t-stain. You know? A little self-absorbed POS who doesn’t bother reading the info provided and then makes up character attacks based on the words of other people. A little bastard (Please note that’s an attack on your character, not your pedigree.) who makes up offenses as a reason to denigrate those who call his B.S. Do you really think you can prove you are not that and more?

Please note. “It’s in the dictionary”. “It’s Bullsh!t”, “Nuh-uh”, and anything you make up and attribute to me is not acceptable evidence. In fact, you don’t have a chance.

I still haven’t engaged in the religion bashing which you, untruthfully, accused me of. And,I have consistently provided proof of alternative interpretations of “atheism”. All while baiting you into ever more irrational behavior. Even after I took pity and told you I was only trying to piss you off.

I even noted your statements that, “some atheists may not claim there are no gods”,”my original statements wouldn’t apply to them”, and, “not all atheists are fanatics”: even though you constantly change position, and emphasis,on each. I was perfectly willing to leave the thread then, though I knew you would recant, but, you kept on with your false accusations.

I will continue to call BS, on you, until you get the simple fact that you condemned me for the words of others and compounded it by making presumptions about peoples beliefs including my own. You are not granted that privilege.

And please explain why this link:
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/theologians.htm

or this one:

http://atheism.about.com/ od/ definitionofatheism/ a/ atheists_modern_2.htm

is of less practical value than the dictionaries you’ve quoted? Assuming you bother to read, or are capable of comprehending, them.

By the way, I suggest you follow a few of the links, you provided, to atheist groups. They provide a number of perspectives on “what is atheism” including some that are quite contrary to The American Atheists. Of course, when I quoted a couple earlier, you dismissed them as “internet bullsh!t”.

Nor has he explained why “a highly respected Professor of Anthropology and Evolution who also happens to be a prominent author” like David Sloan Wilson is relevant now: when equally prominent authors, who happen to be philosophers, theologians, or sociologists; are scorned as so much “internet bullsh!t”.

But then, BAR-BEE-TROLL still thinks my interest was held by his narrow world view. He actually operates under the misconception that I’ve been arguing with him, a person incapable of argument!

I sure hope the upcoming rant lives up to expectations. Gee! Do you think he’ll whine about parameters? I think that’s my favorite.

A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist that,

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...].

or, any of the other various sources which contend with his presumptions. Of course, the BAR-BEE-TROLL has also failed to explain why these definitions:

New Dictionary of Religions, edited by by John R. Hinnells.

Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of any Gods or of God. This may take the form of: (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of theism; (b) scepticism about all religious claims; or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, irrational, or meaningless.

Although the above definition incorrectly suggests that agnosticism is incompatible with theism and most forms of atheism, it nevertheless recognizes that athiesm is more than simply the denial of the existence of gods. Instead, it also includes under the concept the idea of rejecting theistic claims without asserting the opposite and simply ignoring/not bothering with theistic claims.

Encyclopedia of American Religious History, by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck

Atheism, literally the absence of belief in God, has always been a minority viewpoint in American culture.

Although the authors do not have much to say about atheism, they specifically describe it as being generally an absence of belief in the existence of God. Such an absence of belief encompasses both disbelief and denial.

But, I’m sure he’ll entertain with his wit as he proclaims all such contradictory evidence to be Bullsh!t. Let us watch.

Gee BART. Isn’t it amazing what one can learn when one listens to what someone else has to say instead of making presumptions? Of course it would derail the purpose of this, the BAR-BEE-TROLL’s personal, thread.

Alas, I gotta call BS on this one. The BAR-BEE-TROLL, himself, proclaimed that the testimony from “some guy on a blog” is inadmissible. I would think this is especially true when it’s possible the remark was meant as a measure to stop BAR-BEE-TROLL from completely taking over another thread with his spam.

Frankly, I’m disappointed. I had hoped,when given some alone time, the BAR-BEE-TROLL would have come up with something better than “some guy on a blog”.

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 14, 2007 @ 8:16 pm

Actually, I think scientific classifaction (along the line of a Taxonomic rank) would be much more accurate than what you are claiming.

Such as:

Religion -> Christianity -> Protestism -> Baptist -> Southern Baptist

You’ll notice the as the classification moves from left to right the terms (or labels) become more specific in nature

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 16, 2007 @ 12:58 am

Sure was nice to have a break from the crazy. Oh well, i see its still here.

So I read this article. It really is poorly written and is based on nothing more than Mr. Willson’s definition of atheism.

it amazes me that you and wilson have the exact same flaw. An inability to correct define the words you use. Wilson starts off with the general term “atheism” but then proceeds to use some made up new term he calls “new atheism” Of course “new atheism” is nothing more than antitheism, but why would wilson (or Bartlebee) use a more descriptive word when you can make general overemcompassing statements to make your blown out of proportion arguements.

I wonder if mr wilson (or the Bart) thinks there is only christianity or he understands there mare many many different sects such as methodists, amish, and catholics.

Bart, I have long ago said if you would simply change your wording to reflect something which is more descriptive, you statement would be correct. But you wont. You choose to be stubborn and ignorant, all the while knowing you are wrong.

Then he REJECTS anything that challenges his PRESUMPTION. Just like the Bush administration on Global Warming.

I imagine Mr. Bush would be almost as easy to bait as Mr. BAR-BEE-TROLL.

BAR-BEE-TROLL is a pitifully petty person. Read his posts and see him for what he is. A little critter who gnaws like a rat. Like a vile disease that you’re afraid to tell your doctor about.

So, let’s dispel some misconceptions.

1.BAR-BEE-TROLL’s insane BELIEF that I have been debating him. Just in case it’s not obvious; I’ve been “baiting” him since long before I told him so at post 1174.

2.BAR-BEE-TROLL’s insane BELIEF “atheism” has anything to do with it. It got personal, to him, when I said he espoused an incredibly narrow minded and misinformed opinion. When I didn’t go away he attacked my character for things I had not done, based only on his BELIEF that he had any idea what I BELIEVED. He posted this filth at #423. Everything since then has been meant only to reveal BAR-BEE-TROLL’s true colors. Which, he has done in unbelievable detail.

I won’t be here to refute your nonsense tomorrow, but I expect there to be at least 100 rambling comments when I get back.

Please ensure your comments ignore all facts and logic while quoting as many possible dictionaries as often as you can. (be sure to ignore any other definitions which don’t support you, too). Also ensure your repeat the same argument over and over and over and over again.

BTW, you might want to read post # 1631 again.

My mistake

I’ve got to say I love your responses. I love them because they are just so damn stupid.

Do you even know what the words you are using mean?

Grammar is the study of the rules governing the use of a given natural language, and, as such, is a field of linguistics

A dictionary is a book of alphabetically listed words in a specific language, with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, and other information; or a book of alphabetically listed words in one language with their equivalents in another, also known as a lexicon.

Illiteracy is the inability to read or write at a competent level.

- – - –

Dictionaries are not the “last word in English grammatics” as you so claim.
Illiteracy has nothing to do with one’s ability to use a dictionary
Dictionaries may have more than one definition for a word.
Dictionaries do not define things by what they are not.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

blah blah Dictionary blah blah

blah blah idiot blah blah dip$hit blah blah

Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 13, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

Why don’t your repeat your worthless argument a few more time. Maybe soon you’ll actually beleive it yourself.