Huckabee Too Busy Keeping Up With ‘Britney’ Gossip To Follow Foreign Policy
Huckabee Too Busy Keeping Up With ‘Britney’ Gossip To Follow Foreign Policy
In an interview with the Quad-City Times yesterday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee tried to make excuses for his lack of foreign policy knowledge and his ignorance on the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. He compared the NIE to gossip about Britney Spears, saying he just can’t “keep up with every single thing“:
The point I’m trying to make is that, on the campaign trail, nobody’s going to be able, if they’ve been campaigning as hard as we have been, to keep up with every single thing, from what happened to Britney last night to who won “Dancing with the Stars.”
Presumably, presidential candidates are supposed to keep track of foreign policy developments more closely than celebrity gossip. But when asked about the NIE on Dec. 4 — a day after the report was released — Huckabee said he wasn’t even aware of it. Days later, Huckabee defended his gaffe by misrepresenting the timeline of his mistake, quipping that the “report was released at 10:00 in the morning, the president hadn’t seen it in four years and I’m supposed to see it four hours later.”
In fact, despite his lament that he is too busy to follow with current events, Huckabee seems to have had no trouble following the events of Britney Spears and her family. When asked on Dec. 20 about the pregnancy of Britney’s sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, Huckabee had no trouble in quickly giving a response:
It’s a tragedy when a 16-year-old who is not really prepared for all the responsibilities of adult life is going to be now faced with all the responsibilities of honest-to-goodness adult life. I respect it.
Apparently, she’s going to have the child and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it. I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action.
Oops, he did it again.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
It doesn't take much of a stretch to read Huck's remark as equating foreign policy with Britney gossip.
This is a man that a substantial number of Republicans want to win the presidency?
I guess they've really enjoyed the last seven years.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pmDo the HuckleCluck in two thousand oh eight and be a blithering idiot... Sounds perfect for the Know Nothing Party, which seems to be reviving after its collapse about a century and a half ago.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:24 pmRepublican's should be real happy with this guy. He's an uninformed moron...just like Bush.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:26 pmAnd they want this bozo to have the'football' (nuke arming device)?
January 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pmThe Know Nothing political movement in the 1850s (according to dear wikipedia) gave most of its support to the new Republican Party, which nominated Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Now some one hundred and forty seven years later, the Repubicans are giving rise to Know Nothings... Ironic?
January 1st, 2008 at 6:31 pmAnd they want this bozo to have the’football’ (nuke arming device)?
Comment by wisedup — January 1, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
bozo? yes. but he's the republican's best candidate for the job.
his name is huck.
huck huckabee.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pmMore frightening and disheartening than Huckaboob alone is the choice between him and Ghouliani, the ghoul trying to climb to the White House over the graves of the people killed on 9/11. If he gets the nod, I'd seriously have to consider voting for the Enabler in Chief, Hillary Clinton.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pmNow I'm really concerned about that leftover donut at Huckabee's campaign headquarters beating him in the in the next election.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:42 pmIt's a shame the Huckster can't keep up. Sorta sounds like the idiot dolt we now have in the WH who is protected by hordes of enablers and other deflectors and protectors. We don't need another.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:45 pmhuck huckabee.
Comment by joe cantwell —
January 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pmLOL....best one yet.
If he can't keep up today, being a simple Presidential wannabe, what makes us think that he will keep up being President, when information will flow far more quickly, stressful situations will emerge, and instant decissions must be made?
January 1st, 2008 at 6:51 pmevery single thing, from what happened to Britney last night to who won “Dancing with the Stars.â€
...as if those are TWO ENDS of the SPECTRUM!!!!
January 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm"The person who is running for president is seeking to be the leader of the free world, not a Jeopardy contestant," said Karen Hughes, communications director for the Bush campaign. -
Ms. Hughes was speaking about then-governor George W. Bush and his inability to name four leaders in four hot spots of the world.
Reported by CNN on November 5, 1999
January 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/
It doesn’t take much of a stretch to read Huck’s remark as equating foreign policy with Britney gossip.
This is a man that a substantial number of Republicans want to win the presidency?
I guess they’ve really enjoyed the last seven years.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama
Sure. Check out Fox News sometime. You'll see more about Brittany than you will about the Iraq War.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pmyep, 16 year olds having kids is a good thing. let's definitely not tell the young'ns what a condom is.
it's pretty scary that he compares entertainment/celebrity news to legitimate, important news.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pmevery single thing, from what happened to Britney last night to who won “Dancing with the Stars.â€
…as if those are TWO ENDS of the SPECTRUM!!!!
Comment by grover nerdkissed — January 1, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Good point, Grover. maybe it's not so much that Huck has no respect for foreign policy expertise, more that he just doesn't understand how language and syntax work.
Of course, THAT doesn't do much to distinguish him from the current POTUS, either.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:05 pmI can pick up a gossip magazine for $2.95 at checkout instead of paying $400,000 plus free housing plus catering plus maintenance plus health insurance plus motorcades plus jet fuel, etc.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pmClassic Baptist overcompensation.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:16 pmFeeling guilty about an obsession with the flesh,
they preach hell-fire and damnation to the rest of the sinners.
I dunno man, would you vote for the bass player?
January 1st, 2008 at 7:21 pmhttp://ccoaler.blogspot.com/2008/01/sheikh-essa-probably-involved-in-bhutto.html
Sheikh Essa involved in Bhutto killing
January 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pmThe irony here is that while an applicant's knowledge is examined for even a secretary's job in any company, the people who are running for the highest office in the land,the Presidency, never were tested to see what they know about local and foreign affairs...
The majority of them will not even pass a simple test in geography, modern or ancient history.
Any wonder why our foreign policies in the Middle East, Latin America and many other places around the globe are nothing but failure.
It is because the people who run these policies never were tested. They run these policies as OJT 'On The Job Training'.
Huckabee is trying to cash on religion,gays and lesbians,and empty patriotism issues to pave his way to the presidency.
We don't know what he knows about this wrold,foreign affairs,and wide range of international issues.
The issue of 'what a candidate knows' is neither a Republican or Democratic issue,but rather an American one.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pmFailure in this area can be very costly to America, in lives and dollars,as past experiences taught us.
Huck is a retired Marine Corps Major General **
January 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pmHuck is a retired Marine Corps Major General **
Comment by Nachos of Justice
So Gomer made something of his career after all, huh?
January 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pmGollllllleeeee!
Richard A. Huck, that is.
Nachos, ever the tasty, catchy kind of Justice!!
January 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pmI dunno man, would you vote for the bass player?
Comment by Nevar — January 1, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Maybe Geddy Lee, but, he's Canadian.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:00 pmcaption:
(Nucklebee covering Frank Zappa's Dyna Moe Hum....)
Britney watched from the edge of the bed,
January 1st, 2008 at 8:05 pmwith her lips just a twitchin'
and her face gone red....
some drool running down from her chinny chin chin,
as she spied the condition her sister was in........
Maybe Geddy Lee, but, he’s Canadian.
Comment by pete
Take off, eh?
January 1st, 2008 at 8:05 pm;)
Just remember, to a rethug, sex is a sin (unless it's them having it with prostitutes or underage male pages - oh wait, Huck espouses the marriage only (thus far) route, my bad - but national security is just too much damned work. It's much easier to f()k and s()k than to actually do those little presidential (nee, elected official) thingies - like READING intelligence reports, daily briefings, and all those other thingies that they have others to do for them. Oh wait, there was My Pet Goat.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pmHuck said the reason it took him over a day to hear about the Iran NIE (it was all over every media) was that he could not afford a huge team of advisors!
The mother of Jamie Lynn and Britney is now delaying the release of her book on parenting (no joke). She is shocked that the "abstinence-only approach" didn't work!
Flea for POTUS?
January 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pmComment by Nevar — January 1, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Brilliant!
Happy New Year, Nevar. :-)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pmI dunno man, would you vote for the bass player?
Comment by Nevar — January 1, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Yeah , if it was Geddy Lee ; not his retarded doppleganger , Shitty Lee , from a screwed up parallel universe.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pmHuckava Job!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pmMs Joanne, You gotta admit--W did a fine job reading My Pet Goat.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pmThe mother of Jamie Lynn and Britney is now delaying the release of her book on parenting (no joke). She is shocked that the “abstinence-only approach†didn’t work!
Comment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
That's just too precious.
How long has her eldest been spiraling out of control? Mama Spears didn't feel the need to re-think her strategy until the youngest got knocked up? Lordy...
Happy New Year, Keith. :-)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pmNappy, Yew Hear, Zooey
January 1st, 2008 at 8:17 pmWas Jamie's tv show "Zooey 101" modeled after you?
January 1st, 2008 at 8:18 pmThe only reason Huckabee "respects her decision" is because he agrees with what she decided. He has stated quite clearly that she should NOT have had any decision to make, but rather the State should make that decision for her. True respect is what you give to those you DON'T agree with. Respecting those you agree with is not exactly the kind of moral fortitude that I think we need in a POTUS.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:18 pmHuckabee: I must confess...
Britney: That you're a member of the McBible taliban? We already newz that--
Huckabee: ....I still believe (still believe) When I'm not with you I lose my mind give me a sign, hit me baby one more time!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pmShe is shocked that the “abstinence-only approach†didn’t work!
Comment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Heh.
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that," -Brittney Spears
Unless hes talking about abstinence.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pmWho knew that Nachos could taste so good AND be funny!!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pmShorter Huck:
“Britney’s 16 yr old sister getting pregnant is a tragedy and I respect that and appreciate it because she’s going to have the baby instead of getting an abortion. However, abstinence only does work so don’t do this at home, all you 16 yr olds out there in TV land.â€
January 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pmHuckster is pleading ignorance, and I, for one, believe him.
Too much stuff to keep track of, right.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that,†-Brittney Spears
Comment by Xisithrus — January 1, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
I saw that interview. It was with Tucker Carlson on CNN's Crossfire. I think the topic was the Dixie Chicks controversy.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pmHappy New Year, Zooey....
January 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pmWas Jamie’s tv show “Zooey 101″ modeled after you?
Comment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Are you joking? That's the name of her show?
**runs sobbing from the room**
January 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that,†-Brittney Spears
What if, Brittany, the president issued Executive Order 3504blahblah directing you to pay KFed for life?
January 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pmWho knew that Nachos could taste so good AND be funny!!
No one.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pmWhew.
It's "Zoey 101."
I don't have to change my name...
January 1st, 2008 at 8:27 pmZathrus,
You're right. If people like Huckabee ran the country, there would be no decision for people to make----politicians would say that abortion is illegal.
Instead of a woman and her doctor making the decision, it would be a politician/exterminator like Tom DeLay.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:28 pmWho knew that Nachos could taste so good AND be funny!!
Comment by Nachos of Justice — January 1, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Did you take one too many Adderall today?
January 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pmOh well, I tried.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!! MAY THE PRIMARIES TURN OUT FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN!
END ALL POVERTY!!
CYA!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pmYes, it's true Zooey.... did you hear about the driver who blamed the crash of his SUV on the couple having sex in the backseat, claiming it threw the vehicle off balance.....pretty wild neighborhood....
January 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm:)
I'm still telling everyone it was modeled after you. I've seen you in your scout uniform.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pmDid you take one too many Adderall today?
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
No, it's just the sugar from the paint chips.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pmI’m still telling everyone it was modeled after you. I’ve seen you in your scout uniform.
Comment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Heh. I changed my picture just in time. :-)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:32 pmI just hope there won't be any pictures of Huckabee getting out of the car, a la Brittany Spears.
-GSD
January 1st, 2008 at 8:33 pmComment by Nevar — January 1, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
You know, some people just have more exciting lives than most... ;)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:33 pmNo, it’s just the sugar from the paint chips.
Comment by Nachos of Justice — January 1, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
Sugar-free paint chips are the way to go. You can eat more that way.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:34 pmKeith, I would bet my bottom dollar that they wrote it out for him phonetically. He's not so good using words with more than one syllable and I think it had a couple of those.
And I am sure there were the nights kept awake studying that phonetic briefing. It was a big day for him. He was so overwhelmed with the reading and what happened on 9/11 he had to disappear for a day or so (I forgot...anyone know the exact number of hours Bush was MIA after 9/11? I think it was at least 18 but no more than 30. Anyone got that number out there?)
The thought that Huckleberry hound is even getting ANY percentages in GOP primaries is an embarrassment for our country. But then again...how many in our country need that phonetic rendition of My Pet Goat (wait, rendition is for another discussion! Nevermind. :-)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:34 pmHuckabees! Huckabees! They're everywhere! Your defenses are useless against them! Run for your life!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pmSugar-free paint chips are the way to go. You can eat more that way.
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Thanks for the advice! My Lowe's gift card should take care of it!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pmI LOVE TPing!
January 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pmThanks for the advice! My Lowe’s gift card should take care of it!
Comment by Nachos of Justice — January 1, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
Aw, hell no! If you go to old houses and eat those paint chips they're free!
Use your Lowe's card for one of those "touch lamps." Classy.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pmMs Joanne, In the 2000 campaign, W was asked his favorite bookS as a child. He struggled and finally came up with "The Friendly Caterpillar". Turns out it wasn't published until he was like 24.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pmAnd to think, there are a quarter of our population who still love Bush.
And here I thought Camus was his fav. (rolling eyes)
January 1st, 2008 at 8:44 pmComment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
Too funny...
January 1st, 2008 at 8:48 pmFRANCE:criticism:For Dray, Sarkozy doesnt have much of a result
January 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pmCORRECTION:
When George W. Bush was asked about his favourite story from his childhood, he cited The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Amazon.com rates it as "baby preschool". It was published in 1983when Bush was 37 years old.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:58 pmIt was published in 1983when Bush was 37 years old.
Comment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Now that's just sick and wrong...
January 1st, 2008 at 9:01 pmI LOVE TPing!
Comment by Nachos of Justice
Yeah, well, the fence around your high school looks a little sparse, whadda ya say ya go on over and decorate it?
January 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pmTie an old pair of shoes together and thrown them on the fence while you're at it.
Bush thought it was about a different kind of very hungry Caterpillar, the kind that gobbles up a lot of rainforests, wetlands, farmlands, and diesel fuel.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pmThat's why he liked it.
Everyone, flag this moron calling himself Rodan75. It's just a resurrection of one of Mr Pee's pals.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:11 pmyou should huck play "don't fear the reaper" on the bass.
he stinks but it's kinda fun watching him try.
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Seasons don't fear the reaper
Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain
We can be like they are
Come on baby... Don't fear the Reaper
Baby take my hand... Don't fear the Reaper
We'll be able to fly... Don't fear the Reaper
Baby I'm your man...
Valentine is done
Here but now they're gone
Romeo and Juliet
Are together in eternity...
Romeo and Juliet
40,000 men and women everyday... Like Romeo and Juliet
40,000 men and women everyday... Redefine happiness
Another 40,000 coming everyday...We can be like they are
Come on baby... Don't fear the Reaper
Baby take my hand... Don't fear the Reaper
We'll be able to fly... Don't fear the Reaper
Baby I'm your man...
Love of two is one
Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear she couldn't go on
Then the door was open and the wind appeared
The candles blew then disappeared
The curtains flew then he appeared
Saying don't be afraid
Come on baby... And she had no fear
And she ran to him... Then they started to fly
They looked backward and said goodbye
She had become like they are
She had taken his hand
She had become like they are
Come on baby...don't fear the reaper
January 1st, 2008 at 9:16 pm**yawn**
January 1st, 2008 at 9:17 pmRodan, you and your "friend" Mothra can crawl back into your radioactive cave and continue to have your your inter-species monster sex in private. Huckabee is just one in a long line of phony christian idiot republican con artists that fool the foolish.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:17 pm#21 Tarzan,
Wish I could hit recommend multiple times on your post.
What is it with the repubs who run for presidents but don't show any interest in world affairs ? #13 from Repubs are the Smear... remind us of when Shrub couldn't name any of the world leaders. As I remember it, Shrub also said that he wasn't interested in reading or learning about "policy" (after all, what does a prez have to do with govt policy ??)
Now with the war being a big issue, Huck doesn't know about the NIE ? Perhaps a politician with the slightest interest could have someone follow the news and abstract it for them, perhaps hold a daily briefing ?
January 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pmugh... you around RU?
congratulations on the "victory" of YOUR USC TROJANS...
wasn't much of a fight though... i had no hope that the ILLINI
would win, but i didn't think it would be so embarrassing...
sacraficial lambs...
...
on another note, and more ON TOPIC:
anyone hear the story about the father of this child's baby?
supposedly, a TV executive who's old enough to be her GRANDFATHER...
http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2007/12/from-polyamory.html
January 1st, 2008 at 9:22 pm"Why do you Leftists bash Christians..."
Bobwurst included phony christians in his list of descriptors.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pmHe wasn't bashing christians.
Try to read the whole sentence, Rodan, and don't skip over the hard words.........
He's also a religious-right nut job with a demonstrated penchant for setting jailed serial rape-murderers free to rape and kill again. The fact that he did this is all the more damning as he did as an act of political retribution against Bill Clinton.
Furthermore, Huck had his intestines operated on so that he would lose weight, lied about it by attributing his weight loss to self-control and endurance, and then criticizes others when they lack the 'self-control' to stop their own bad/dangerous habits.
And finally, in addition to all of the preceding, he is a conservative Republican - and they're not liked much here, anyway.
So, Rodent, why don't you just STFU and vote for this moron? Why post here?
January 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pmI'm not "anti-Christian". I'm anti-neocon, anti-GOP (though I was a proud member before the neocons took control), anti-theocrat, and, most especially, anti-ignorant dumbphuck.
I wouldn't trust the Huckster to find a light-switch in broad daylight.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:31 pm"Huck had his intestines operated on so that he would lose weight,...."
REALLY?
I wondered about those jowls, but I guessed that it's 'cause he's half blue-tick...
January 1st, 2008 at 9:31 pmFurthermore, Huck had his intestines operated on so that he would lose weight, lied about it by attributing his weight loss to self-control and endurance, and then criticizes others when they lack the ’self-control’ to stop their own bad/dangerous habits.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — January 1, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
He did? What a pig!
I guess that's what counts as a "good christian?"
January 1st, 2008 at 9:32 pmRe: #64 & 68 -- Although I'll believe almost anything about the Bubble Boy, this just seemed too bizarre to be true. The subsequent web search for corroborating information again proved the adage that the truth is stranger than fiction. You just can't make up stuff like this.
For further info, you can check out the following:
http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/George_W._Bush
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=560549
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/11/13/MN100771.DTL
All governors were asked to name their favorite childhood books in a nation-wide survey. Curiously (or perhaps not), Jeb Bush named "Curious George" as one of his favorites. Perhaps symptomatic of a subconscious longing for a wished-for aspect of his childhood that never materialized?
No wonder he seemed so much at home reading "My Pet Goat" on 9/11.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:33 pmAnd, after demonstrating his complete lack of ability to handle weapons responsibly, I wouldn't allow the Huckster within miles of nuclear launch codes.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:35 pmI must correct myself by saying that he 'allegedly' had his intestines operated on...
I wasn't there.
As his former obese state was probably caused by repressed sexuality, it was either keep eating, get a gastric bypass, or spend 8 hours a day jerking off to pictures of Larry Craig.
That's just my opinion, folks - but I'll bet it's true.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pmThat’s just my opinion, folks - but I’ll bet it’s true.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — January 1, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
He did lose the weight fast, but it is possible for some people to lose weight fairly fast. I think it's terrible that he criticizes other people for being fat. That's a hell of a nerve...
January 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pmI'm guessing it may be in his family, has anyone seen his son?
January 1st, 2008 at 9:41 pm(you know, the one who hung the dog in his cabin at Boy Scout camp....)
He looks like a real bubba brewser........... 300 lbs, easy..............
Should the Huckster be thrown in jail for improperly displaying the flag as a guitar strap?
January 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pmI’m guessing it may be in his family, has anyone seen his son?
(you know, the one who hung the dog in his cabin at Boy Scout camp….)
He looks like a real bubba brewser……….. 300 lbs, easy…………..
Comment by Nevar — January 1, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
Please say that's not true...about the dog. I don't care if he's a blubber butt.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:43 pmComment by katy — January 1, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Yes, I'm here, and they did a pretty good job of turning four turnovers into 28 points, otherwise, I was pretty impressed with the Illini defense, and their QB is pretty good.
Happy New Year to you and yours miss Katy!
January 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pmComment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Hey, I feel confronted. Anyone else?
You're free to go now...
January 1st, 2008 at 9:44 pmYes, Zooey, he hung the dog, cause it looked 'Mangy'..
January 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pmQuite the good little Jeebus Boy, wasn't he.
It was on the news about 3 weeks ago, Zooey.....
January 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pmHuckster got the Arkansas State police to back off from pressing charges...
Please say that’s not true…about the dog. I don’t care if he’s a blubber butt.
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
It's true! And Daddy swept it under the rug.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pmhttp://shotpolitics.com/the-huckabee-dog-killing-cover-up.htm
I come on here to confront you Leftwing anti-Christian Pro-Islamic jerks!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
And leave with the usual urine stains.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pmYou're gonna' need help - somebody with an education would be a good choice.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:49 pmthank you, RU, for the new year wishes,
and your kind words about the ILLINI...
i had to quit watching for good in the 3rd quarter...
that dirge the MARCHING ILLINI played at half-time
January 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pmdid nothing to stir up the team spirit either...
stairway to heaven??? WTF?
yea, that will surely impress those californians... ugh...
Huh. We haven't had a real Mr. Pee infestation in a long time. It's "Rodan75" now, is it, Mr. Pee?
January 1st, 2008 at 9:54 pmComment by RUCerious — January 1, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
OMG, that's horrifying and cruel. It would have been more merciful to shoot the poor thing.
You know what is so interesting? You know how we had this horrible feeling about Chimpy, but learned the awful truth after he was president?
Not that I think Hucker will be prez, of course.
Well, all this stuff has come out before Hucker is even close to the nomination -- imagine what horrible secrets he's still holding on to.
**shudder**
January 1st, 2008 at 9:55 pmHey, I feel confronted. Anyone else?
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
Not in the least. Even if I were any of the things the "new" troll says. Besides which, I don't bother confronting people who are compelled to proclaim their IQ. Especially when it's "75". No challenge at all.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:57 pmHuh. We haven’t had a real Mr. Pee infestation in a long time. It’s “Rodan75″ now, is it, Mr. Pee?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 1, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
Nah. It revealed a "new" persona, one "Libtard" just a couple nights ago. Lasted about an hour before it was banished. I don't think this one is Pee. Too many mispeled wurds.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:02 pmComment by good_golly — January 1, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
The Huckster admits his only support comes from "piss-soaked trolls".Ya can't make this stuff up! ROTFL!!
I thank you gigi!!!
January 1st, 2008 at 10:05 pmHuckabee is anti-Globalists and anti-Free Trade.
Yet you eftists attack him.
You guys are pathetic!
Comment by Rodan75
I haven't attacked anyone and from what I have read on Huckabee he has no real foreign policy, so I dont know that he is against globalism or free trade.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pmWe hate Pro-Muslim Leftists like you!
Comment by Rodan75
Tell me why, then, that the conservatives are freeing the Iraqis [Muslims]?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pmHate is a useless thing Rodan and doesnt solve anything.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:10 pmNot in the least. Even if I were any of the things the “new†troll says. Besides which, I don’t bother confronting people who are compelled to proclaim their IQ. Especially when it’s “75″. No challenge at all.
Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Just attempting to get The Joker to leave -- even though that entails a piss trail...
January 1st, 2008 at 10:10 pmRodan is a fake. A lib pretending to be from the other side to give you all someone to call names.
Comment by good_golly
He's one of yours golly.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pmRodan is a fake. A lib pretending to be from the other side to give you all someone to call names.
Comment by good_golly — January 1, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
You say that about all the most stupid trolls -- except yourself.
Rodan is a genuine piss-soaked troll -- of your kind.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:14 pmComment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Are you confronting me again?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:15 pmBoth Parties are beholden to Islamic ineterests!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:12 pm
So then Huckabee is also pro-islamist?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:15 pmI beat you Muslim loving Leftists everytime!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
I am certain that no one here has been 'beaten' by you, ever.
My good friend Ray, from Pakistan will be chuckling at your antics tomorrow when I forward this link to him.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:17 pmIs anyone here a "leftist"? Has anyone ever, even, met a "leftist"? Personally, I don't think there's been a real "leftist", in this country, since Nixon proved idealism can't stop bullets.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pmComment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Well, you did that already.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pmcon fronting?
Is that like providing a front for convicts? Spell much? Got educumation?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pmHuckabee isn’t Pro-Islam.
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
You just said BOTH parties are beholden to Islamic interests.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:18 pmMy good friend Ray, from Pakistan will be chuckling at your antics tomorrow when I forward this link to him.
Comment by RUCerious — January 1, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Since I'm a Muslim-lover, tell Ray I love him.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:19 pmThe ultimate justice would be for the new trolls 5th grade English teacher to see his piss poor grammar and spelling. She'd hunt his ass down and....wait, oh, that was his mom... never you mind.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:20 pmMistress Z, I would but his wife would whack me over the head...!
January 1st, 2008 at 10:20 pmMistress Z, I would but his wife would whack me over the head…!
Comment by RUCerious — January 1, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
It's a pure and platonic love -- you know, the kind I have for all of Islam. ;)
January 1st, 2008 at 10:22 pmIs anyone here a “leftist� -Pete
Rodan seems to equate being left of right ideology with cold war communism. Which is odd because, in reality, the muslims didnt care for the communists at all.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:22 pmLost in the pundits' pondering over Mike Huckabee's scam to show - and then not air - an attack ad against Mitt Romney is the former Arkansas Governor's apparent bloodlust. As Steve Benen and Michael Crowley note, Huckabee's spot takes Romney to task for a record in Massachusetts that included "no executions." In extolling the joys of the death penalty, Huckabee is following in the proud tradition of George W. Bush.
For the details, see:
January 1st, 2008 at 10:23 pm"Huckabee Echoes Bush in Killer Ad."
He’s an Islamist.
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
You're an Islamist too, Joker.
Did you know that every time you think, speak or write the word Islam, a martyr gets his wings?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:28 pmBring it on!
I beat you Muslim loving Leftists everytime!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Isn't that what your Saudi loving leader said that got him in so much trouble. You need to take your meds Joker, you're losing it.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:29 pmIt’s a pure and platonic love — you know, the kind I have for all of Islam. ;) Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Heh.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pmJoker/Rodan is either off his meds or is about to OD on them tonight.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:31 pmRodan you need big pharmaceuticals, lots of them, fast. Run don't walk to the emergency room before you hurt yourself.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pmComment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
I had no idea there was anything "worst" than a Muslim lover.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pmYou want Russia and China to attack the US. -Rodan
Why would China attack their debtor nation?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:33 pmI don’t like Bush either!
He’s Pro Muslim too!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Sure you troll are all "independents"! But we know you're on your knees in the under the desk in the Oval Office doing one for the Chimp in Chief. You probably hold hands with the Saudi Sheiks while they're waiting for W you lying sack of neocon.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:35 pmEven a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:35 pmOtherwise admit you’re a liar.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
This is Mr Pee's Renfield, you are too optimistic.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:35 pmPot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. You two have much in common. I hope you are happy together.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pmYou’re worst than a Muslim lover.
You’re a traitor.
You want Russia and China to attack the US.
You’re a P.O.S!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Even for a psycho you are confused. Attacking Iran, the wet dream of all you neocons, is the way to get Russia and China to attack the US. Maybe you should go to a neocon site because they're the one inciting attacks by these two super powers. Maybe you need to shut your yap until you get a clue.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pmI had no idea there was anything “worst†than a Muslim lover.
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Maybe if you were a China lover as well?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pmlol, clearly we’re dipping into the dregs this holiday season for our trolls.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
He is mildly entertaining -- in the same way ruptured testicles would be entertaining. ;)
January 1st, 2008 at 10:38 pmYou were bragging how China and Russia will defeat America.
You were happy about it and how it was good for the world
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Proof positive that home schooling doesn't teach reading comprehension. Especially when mom is an illiterate crack whore.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pmThis is Mr Pee’s Renfield, you are too optimistic.
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
If he starts eating live bugs, i'm outa here. lmao
January 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pmMr. Pee says he loves you!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
That's nice.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:39 pmYou were bragging how China and Russia will defeat America.
You were happy about it and how it was good for the world
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Rodan, how was Russia defeated in the cold war?
Economically. In the last 25 years America went from a creditor to a debtor nation. China is a fast rising economical power. Since 2001, under GOP rule, the dollar has lost much of its value.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:40 pmI wonder what flying spittle and froth do to one's keyboard.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:40 pmWe should ask the prehistoric flying dinasour.
Zooey,
Mr. Pee says he loves you!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
I think he was talking to you pretty boy. Don't deflect the adoration, embrace it ... him ... it ... or both.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pmIf he starts eating live bugs, i’m outa here. lmao
Comment by Wayne — January 1, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
I don't want to think about what he might eat...
January 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pmMr. Pee says he loves you! -Rodan
Well, we love Mr Pee in a weird convoluted kind of way.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pmRenfield..Perfect.
Master! Master!
January 1st, 2008 at 10:41 pmThe US ain’t attacking Iran paranoid Muslim lover!
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
Where have you been, in a straight jacket or solitary confinement? Because the neocons were itching to attack Iran only recently. Did you just get out. Maybe you need to reacclimate yourself to the outside before you spew stupid.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pmWell, we love Mr Pee in a weird convoluted kind of way.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 1, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
He certainly needs it.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pmHe certainly needs it. -Zooey
You know them durn Liberals, all peace and love, like that guy Jesus!
January 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pmI wonder if 75 is unicode for T
January 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pmThe pterasaur knows how much of our debt China is holding, knows about the Russian oil and gas fields fueling much of their economic rebound. It just wants to come here and spit and spray all over the thread. Calling people names gets him off, just like back in the schoolyard.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pmAscii 75 is the + sign. Definitely not any correlative value here.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:48 pmAscii 75 is the + sign. Definitely not any correlative value here.
Comment by RUCerious
You mean its not RodanT?
January 1st, 2008 at 10:50 pmYou know them durn Liberals, all peace and love, like that guy Jesus!
Comment by Xisithrus — January 1, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Piss-soaked trolls hate that. :)
January 1st, 2008 at 10:50 pmmust refer to the IQ...
January 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pmPiss-soaked trolls hate that. :) -Zooey
Heh.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pmmust refer to the IQ…
Comment by RUCerious — January 1, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
if thats the case, he has a typo, 7-5
January 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pmI’m gonna lookm for your posts now
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
That's gonna take forever. :-)
January 1st, 2008 at 10:55 pmWay off topic.
This will be my last comment at TP. The editorial staff has elected to remove my response to a rabid attack, while leaving the falsehoods of the other party for all to see. This is unacceptable.
I've had fun, and, I will doubtless run into many of you on, effectively moderated, forums.
I can't leave without a warning, however. The troll known as BARTLEBEE is a narrow minded, ignorant, hateful, judgmental, abusive sh!t-stain. And, when challenged, it lies like the lowest of conservative trolls. Don't dare to disagree with it or you may be the next one subjected to it's foul abuse only to have your response deleted as happened to me in this thread:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/29/huckabee-phone-call-with-god/#comment-4191249
Good bye.
January 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pmI’m gonna lookm for your posts now
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
That’s gonna take forever. :-)
Comment by Zooey — January 1, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Shhhh...
January 1st, 2008 at 10:59 pmWhen he reads or thinks he falls asleep. =D
This gives a very strong case that Huckabee had weight-loss SURGERY:
http://plutarch01.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/new-121007-300pm/
Also on CNN the other day, Huck was criticizing Romney for only hunting twice in his life---while he goes 30 times a year. Then Huck can't figure out that the reason he is having trouble firing his gun is because the safety is on!!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:01 pmComment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Pete, TP is not staffed over the holidays. If you're having a problem, email Faiz in the next few days.
There's nothing that says you have to deal with Bart.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:01 pmSorry, no posts were found matching “Bartlebee.â€
Comment by Rodan75 — January 1, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Not even today...?
January 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pmComment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Naw, thats happened to me as well Pete. Dont let one person keep you from posting.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pmDescriptive Classifications of Intelligence Quotients
IQ Description % of Population
130+ Very superior 2.2%
120-129 Superior 6.7%
110-119 High average 16.1%
90-109 Average 50%
80-89 Low average 16.1%
70-79 Borderline 6.7%
Below 70 Extremely low 2.2%
Obviously 75 is too high for his "actual" IQ. He'd then be borderline as opposed to extremely low which obviously RodanT is.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:06 pmLooks like TP is, in fact, getting some moderation. A bunch of troll poop just disappeared. Hooray!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:06 pmRodan, the TP search field at the top of the screen doesnt work very well.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:07 pmSee, Pete, bartie thinks he won, even when nobody agreed with him. So it's your choice to leave, but you really shouldn't allow yourself to be driven away by a socially maladjusted pseudo-intellectual who hasn't the courage or clarity to admit when he's wrong.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:10 pmThe Joker has left the building.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:10 pmComment by Keith — January 1, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Thanks, Keith. That article is very thorough.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:11 pmThe Joker has left the building.
Comment by gummitch — January 1, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Awww, too bad, so sad. :P
January 1st, 2008 at 11:12 pmYou guys instead tried to win by ignoring the dictionary and the facts, and carrried your perverse attack on me hoping I’d just give up and let you win by sheer numbers. But I didn’t give up, because I was right, and the dictionary confirmed that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
ROTFL! Pure PROJECTION there BART. The DICTIONARIES OF RECORD (Merriam Webster and Oxford) BOTH disagree with you, but you were too much of a TARDED FANATIC to admit it. Sorry BART but where this ISSUE is involved, you're EVERY BIT as MUCH OF A LIAR and MORON as RODAN APPEARS TO BE! Grow up LITTLE GIRL!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:14 pmI did win, the moment I produced a valid dictionary definition that defined atheism as a belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
YOU LOSE the MOMENT the DICTIONARIES OF RECORD and the ROOT WORD both DISAGREE WITH YOU! - TARDED MORON!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:15 pmSee, Pete, bartie thinks he won, even when nobody agreed with him. So it’s your choice to leave, but you really shouldn’t allow yourself to be driven away by a socially maladjusted pseudo-intellectual who hasn’t the courage or clarity to admit when he’s wrong.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 1, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
Yeah, if Bart's BRAINS and HONEST matched is STUBBORN BUSH'NESS he might have been SMART ENOUGH to NOT BE SUCH A NASTY NERDY LITTLE HENDLER'ESQUE LOSER!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pmUnbelievable...
Later.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:16 pmZooey, he's on wordpress, he must be good. Says the medical center that did it got a special $1 million endowment from him.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:17 pmbart, you're easier than Larry Craig. what a sucker. you've done a good job of convincing yourself, but nobody else. some win.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:18 pmWay off topic.
This will be my last comment at TP. The editorial staff has elected to remove my response to a rabid attack, while leaving the falsehoods of the other party for all to see. This is unacceptable.
I’ve had fun, and, I will doubtless run into many of you on, effectively moderated, forums.
I can’t leave without a warning, however. The troll known as BARTLEBEE is a narrow minded, ignorant, hateful, judgmental, abusive sh!t-stain. And, when challenged, it lies like the lowest of conservative trolls. Don’t dare to disagree with it or you may be the next one subjected to it’s foul abuse only to have your response deleted as happened to me in this thread:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/29/huckabee-phone-call-with-god/#comment-4191249
Good bye.
Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
My beef is with the staff. I will no longer support their incompetance.
Comment by pete — January 1, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
January 1st, 2008 at 11:20 pmeven dictionaries change, eventually, bartie. you put too much faith is words.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:20 pmTo get rid of trolls you have to paste the offensive post into the "Contact Us" page. Just reporting abuse doesn't work around here. And when they're slandering Faiz it's a good idea to contact them. After all this is a business.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pmmany literate people are very stupid. a dictionary is a limited source, and is a compendium of opinions. it seems to fit your limited viewpoint, but that's your problem. and you are being very selective in your choices of definitions, as well. you may as well quote the bible.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:24 pmKeith I think it was bypass surgery. For one thing 100 lbs. is the mark you need to hit to get the bypass surgery. Besides that the rate at which he lost weight would be remarkable, making it to the full 105 lbs. and being as thin as he is without it. When he wins the nomination, snort, we should demand that he has a physical and release his full medical records to determine his character.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:27 pmBartlebee, you accusing others of having to have the last word is indeed ironic. You sound like Worfeus, who had to leave after another bout of having to have the last word.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pmSee?
I get attacked, out of the blue. Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
OUT OF THE BLUE? ROTFL!! You ATTACK ALL ATHEISTS, then IGNORE THE DICTIONARY, FACTS, the LANGUAGE ROOT and REALITY and INSULT THOSE THAT DEBUNK YOUR BULLSH!T and it's YOU that GETS ATTACKED?
ROTFL!! How ROVIAN of you 'tard!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:36 pmNewsflash genius.
The DICTIONARY is the standard. The DICTIONARY is how we know the meanings of our “dictionâ€.
I honestly cannot believe I have to say this.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
Actually Merriam Webster and Oxford are the ONLY TWO Dictionaries OF RECORD - so BY THEM you're a LYING MORON!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:37 pmIts unbelievable.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
You're unbelievable. Dictionaries change with the times, and have been wrong countless times throughout history. They also have a demonstrable social bias, as well as several alternate definitions for most words, including definitions for atheist that don't mention doctrine or belief. Your reliance on "diction" as a basis for what an atheist is or isn't is laughable, silly, puerile and weak. All you are demonstrating is your ignorance and bias, as well as your delusions of adequacy. You don't win when you don't learn.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pmI’m not going to apologize for being correct, and I’m certainly not going to run away from foul vicious attacks like the one Pete here just landed, or the ensuing pile on, just because some liberal regulars in here demand I do. Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
See, the FALACY of this is your DELUSION that YOU ARE CORRECT, thereby making it a FUTILE EXERCISE to APOLOGIZE for something that ISN'T REAL!! ROTFL you're DUMB SOMETIME!
I’ll stick up for my own positions, and if you don’t like it, tell your pals to stop attacking me out of the blue like Pete and Lefty did here tonight.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
You can stick to your DELUSION all you want, but you were DEBUNKED WEEKS AGO - LYING MORON!
January 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pmYou don’t win when you don’t learn.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 1, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
When it comes to 'religion', Bart's too TARDED and BIASED to learn.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:39 pmUmm, Bartlebee, I believe humans exist. That is not faith, that is actually based on what I have observed. Faith is NOT the same thing as belief. Faith is the belief in something without need of evidence.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:45 pmFaith is believing in pink unicorns and the trolls under the bridge (or god, for that matter). Scientists believe certain things because they have tested them and think a certain thing is most likely. Faith is believing in something...well...just cuz.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pmBartlebee, belief in god is faith.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pmWhether you used it or not that is what you were referring to.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pmSorry, Bart, you can define atheism but I cannot define the opposite? No, sorry, doesn't work that way.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:51 pmAnyone who was around for Bartlebee's original atheist tirade should know better than to indulge him now.
Anyone who wasn't around for that episode should be able to figure out just from this thread that Bartlebee isn't worth the energy required to argue with him.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pmAtheism is a belief, and RHF is an ignorant homeschooled twit.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
this isn't about atheism, bart, this is about your smug superiority being challenged. you don't know what you're talking about, so you have to rely on, of all things, a dictionary to define a concept you have no understanding of. you decided, out of the blue, that your concept was going to apply to people whom you don't know. some atheists may agree with you, some won't. the ones that disagree with you will be asked to prove a negative, to satisfy your insane need to be right. if they decline to enter into such an unreasonable and juvenile contest, they will be vilified and called names, and yet will not be proven wrong. that makes you pretty much the automatic loser. and you become the fanatic you accuse others of being. it's a delicious irony, one that I've enjoyed immensely, seeing you brought to earth by your own crappy "logic". it's nice to see a bully's nose bloodied occasionally.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pmA-gnostic - someone who does not believe in gnosis.
A-moral - someone who has no morals.
A-sexual - someone who has no sexual component.
A-political - someone who does not follow politics.
A-typical - something that is not typical.
A-sympathetic - someone who has no sympathy.
A-theism - means someone believes there is no god? Or someone who doesn't believe in the concetp of God?
This is all just semantic sillyness.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm"Once again Einstein, SCROLL UP, and FIND the comments where I mentioned “faith in god†“belief in god†or anything of the sort.
:|"
Uhh, considering the true definition of atheism would be a direct antonym of faith it is a fair point. You still want to define everything in your terms. Sorry, you can't.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:53 pm"Anyone who was around for Bartlebee’s original atheist tirade should know better than to indulge him now."
I wasn't around but I have a feeling he is not exactly a fair debater on the issue.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:54 pmHehehehe.
Nice thread.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:55 pmNo, Bartlebee, you claim that atheism is a belief. Fair enough. The sad fact is it is a valid belief as there is no evidence of the opposite.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:56 pmI wasn’t around but I have a feeling he is not exactly a fair debater on the issue.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 1, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
Yeah, Pete had him pretty well pegged. Bartlebee can be fun to have around when he's bashing trolls, but when he turns into one himself, not so much.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pmNo, you don’t get to define MY terms dickweed.
Sorry you can’t.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
there you go, sabyen91, proof of your position. "MY" terms.
Is the internet big enough for bartie's ego?
January 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pm"No, you don’t get to define MY terms dickweed.
Sorry you can’t."
Hehe, why not, you are defining other people under your distorted world view.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pmSo let's play semantic sillyness.
If atheism is a belief, it would have a positive connotation - but the "a" makes it a negative, since the "a" means "not" in the original Greek, does it not?
January 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pmMost of us probably did see Bartlebee's original atheism tirade and left it alone hoping it would go away. And we've all seen him go on rants about other things too. It seems he's just a troll of a different color and the only thing to do is ignore him.
What's funny is that he things we're coming out of nowhere to "attack" him like he hasn't done plenty to get our attention.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:58 pm"there you go, sabyen91, proof of your position. “MY†terms.
Is the internet big enough for bartie’s ego?"
The first time I saw him (after a long break) I attacked him right away because I thought he was an ignorant troll. I was right. Always go with your first impression.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:59 pmIt's like Goya's painting: Saturn eating one of his children.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 am"Thats right numbnuts, now go back and recant all of your strawmen that you just crapped the board up with.
Take back the lies."
Huh? What are you talking about? Nothing I said was a strawman. Atheism is the lack of faith in any and all gods. Or is that beyond you?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 amI think we need to come up for a term for the kind of trolling Bart does. Maybe a competition.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am"I’ve got over 900 comments in the other thread that your altar ego just posted a link to in here,"
I almost missed that!!! You are funny. Claiming I have an altar ego, again? Are you Jake?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 amTo jump into the discussion with my humble opinion is: who cares?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 am"Tell it to the DICTIONARY folks.
Atheism is a belief.
It is the belief that there is no god."
And yet...there are various degrees of belief...or do you disagree?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 amJuan, I do. That is why I am posting.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 ammost dictionaries have several definitions of atheism that don't mention belief or doctrine. bart's just doing the usual troll selectivity, a brand of intellectual dishonesty that he thinks will bring him a "win", whatever that is. as he gets more flustered by his inability to "win", he gets more abusive and incoherent. this, of course, wins him lots of allies and converts.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 amNext, Bartlebee will be saying atheism is a religion. Or has he already done that?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 amIt was a rethorical question, JP. :)
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 amUntil then you’re just one more illiterate, arguing with the dictionary.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 1, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
I've just pointed out contradictions in the dictionary(s): that all the other words that start with "a," have negative connotations, except, supposedly, atheism, which has a positive connotation (belief, vs. anti-belief) I guess that part blew right past you.
So, dictionaries (just like all religious texts) have contradictions printed into them. Big surprise, huh?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 amOk, Bartlebee, somehow I think you are equating atheism to religion...if so there is a difference. Atheists believe something. Religionists have faith in something. If you don't think that is true tell me why.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 amI followed a few links implying that Huckabee used bariatic surgery rather than loosing his weight the "old fashioned way."
What I find interesting is that Huck says that he used a weight loss clinic at the University medical school. In short, even if he didn't use surgery, he **STILL** didn't do it the "old fashioned way" but used a highly intensive, medically monitored regimen that starts with liquid diets and slowly moves back to solid foods.
Such a regimen is not only far outside the financial abilities of the uninsured, but is also one not generally allowed on most healthcare plans.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 amBartlebee, again, I believe humans are real. That is a belief. I cannot prove it. It could be one big dream. However, evidence says there is. There is no evidence, whatsoever, of a god. You can keep ignoring the validity of a certain belief but it doesn't make you look any more intelligent.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 amOckham's Razor would not even come close to saying there is some omnipotent being.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 amTo jump into the discussion with my humble opinion is: who cares?
Comment by Juan C. — January 2, 2008 @ 12:02 am
well, to be fair, Juan C., that's a good point, except that old bartie here decided to paint all atheists with the broad brush of fanaticism, which was completely unwarranted and needed to be responded to. I have no more interest in his twisted view of atheism as a belief system than I do of his claim of the extensive documentation of the existence of god or gods, but I am no fanatic, and just wanted to make perfectly clear that his scattershot opinion needed clarification and qualification to be in the least bit accurate or sensible. Instead, he dug in his heels and threw a three-day tantrum that he appears to not be done with yet.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 amNext, Bartlebee will be saying atheism is a religion. Or has he already done that?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Bartlebee/Worfeus will say ANYTHING to win an argument. Just like a troll.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 amI know Shayne, I disliked him the first time I saw him. He was bashing tombaker for some semantic BS.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 amBartlebee, do you believe in elves that crap vanilla wafers?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 amAnother illiterate that claims the dictionary’s wrong.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:07 am
That's not an argument, anymore that claiming Jesus really turned water to wine because the Bible says so.
You refuse to acknowledge the semantic inconsistency, that makes you the worse than an illiterate - it makes you willfully ignorant. I notice you haven't tried to argue the point. It doesn't say much about the religious' ability to discern contradiction (if you're stepping up to claim the mantle) in general, to just rely on dogma, be it religious text, or Websters'. Can you NOT think for yourself?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 amAgain, about those elves that crap vanilla wafers...do you believe in them?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 amI would think that to get the definitive answer on whether atheism is a belief system you'd need to use the Bible and not a dictionary. The dictionary can tell you what a disease is but it can't diagnose a patient. When the dictionary became the arbiter for religious philosophy seems to be a mystery. Maybe we should go to mystery writers to see if atheism is a belief system. Or maybe we could just get a troll to decipher it for us.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 am"You mean the Keeblers?
:|
Yea… I’ve seen them on TV."
Ok, how about horses that speak perfect English and save people from themselves...oh, yeah, Mr. Ed. Or a dog smart enough to tell people Timmy is in the well...crap, Lassie. How about a Polish sausage that has taken over all of the planets in the Milky Way other than the Earth?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 amBartlebee has a belief system, it's called "Splitting Hairs".
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 am"Yea?
Tell us something we didn’t know"
You are not hard to dislike.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 amwell, to be fair, Juan C., that’s a good point, except that old bartie here decided to paint all atheists with the broad brush of fanaticism, which was completely unwarranted and needed to be responded to.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
I understand, Lefty.
Bart is like my old man or my mother, they are great when it comes to some things and they are obnoxious and stubborn when it comes to others. So what?
To me, defending so much a point, trying to prove something even at the cost of humiliating somebody else is worthless and sad sometimes.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:20 am"I don't believe in god."
Only a narrow-minded, bigoted, socially maladjusted, intellectually-limited egomaniac would claim that the above statement is a belief system. Only the same damaged individual would label anyone who makes the above statement a fanatic.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 amBartlebee also "believes" that he can bloviate pompously and then type little faces in lieu of substantiation and then everybody should just bow down to his brilliance.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 amSo Bart, just post another dictionary example that begins with "a" that DOESN"T have a "not" connotation, to prove your point.
Just one.
Or acknowledge the contradiction.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 amThats called science.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:21 am
No, it's called juvenile bullshit.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 amWould this be a bad time to point out that the plural of "dictionary" is "dictionaries", not "dictionary's"?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 amWhat Barty fails to realize is that in his view atheism is just like believing there is no Incredible Hulk. There is no evidence to support an Incredible Hulk like being besides written word. Sounds familiar.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 amTherefore, you can disagree with the dictionary all you want, but to attack me for merely stating whats in the dictionary is plain ignorant.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:22 am
and in which of those many dictionaries are atheists called "fanatics"?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am"Atheists claim there is no god.
They cannot prove this claim."
You make my point for me. You cannot disprove purple unicorns. That makes you BAD!!!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 amTherefore, you can disagree with the dictionary all you want, but to attack me for merely stating whats in the dictionary is plain ignorant.
Comment by BARTLEBEE —
You're a coward, for not acknowledging the semantic inconsistency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 amWhy gee no Wayne, why would you think that?
After all I’ve only been fighting off attacks for a month on this subject now, and with the pile on well underway and me having to type a few thousand words a second here this evening, why would you think I’d mind someone coming in to correct my typos?
:|
Whatever could give you such an idea?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:24 am
when in doubt, get out the drying towel. poor bart, having to defend himself against all of us illiterate morons, all by himself. I wonder when he's going to buy a vowel, or get a clue?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 amJust one example, coward.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 am"Atheists claim there is no god."
I thought you said atheists "believe" there is no god. How is saying I believe in something the same as claiming there is proof positive that it doesn't exist. And how would we prove the negative to make a definitive claim. Where's the hypothesis, the theory, the experimentation that could prove such a claim.
Better yet, where's the straw man and who's making the argument.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 am"Therefore, you can disagree with the dictionary all you want, but to attack me for merely stating whats in the dictionary is plain ignorant."
Are you kidding? The dictionary is technically right. It IS a belief because nothing can be proven. Unfortunately for you there is such a thing as evidence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 amI think every time Bart posts this drivel I'll hang the "just one example" around his neck until he decides to discuss something else.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am"I thought you said atheists “believe†there is no god."
Heh, nice, Shayne. Bartlebee is nothing if not inconsistent and shifty.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 amWhat's wrong, Bart?
Can't find another example to show there is no inconsistency in dictionary definitions?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 amHey, Huckabee! He hasn't got a clue about that NIE, but he sure knows about the knocked up Spears girl.
How about that!?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 amJust one example, Bart.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 amSure Bart, atheists have no empirical evidence to prove there is no god so they are wrong in believing there is no god based on that lack of evidence. Well where is the empirical evidence that there is a god. Personally I believe in god but not in religions. But I don't believe because I have empirical evidence that he exists.
But for the record, I believe you have some scientists spinning in their graves by insisting atheist need empirical evidence to prove there is no god or vice versa.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 am"Both religionists and atheists have their own set of beliefs, that neither can prove, thus both are belief systems.
The main difference is religionists tend to admit it, but the atheists seem to have trouble doing that."
LOL, yeah, religionists admit they could be wrong. Wait, they don't? Again, Barty, do you believe in little green dwarves that have the power to suck the life out of people and turn them into even bigger green dwarves???
The main difference between atheists and you is atheists tend to doubt something that no evidence whatsoever supports.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 am"Like your lying friends you are also a liar, claiming I “decided†to post about this."
Thin skinned intellectual coward.
Just one example - or acknowledge the dictionaries' semantic inconsistency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 amI hate religious arguments. They go on forever and never get anywhere!
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 amThe main difference is religionists tend to admit it, but the atheists seem to have trouble doing that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:30 am
that's simply because you're wrong. atheists would very naturally have trouble admitting that which isn't true, while religionists' whole belief depends on admitting that which they can't prove. you have conflated belief and faith, as was pointed out earlier, not that it matters, since all you have is semantic games to play, and some sort of sick need to equivocate non-believers with the faithful. That's a more accurate term for me, by the way, a non-believer. perhaps formalized atheism might follow some of your dogma, but we non-believers don't believe. you can look it up. in the dictionary.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 am"Thats RIGHT Flavius, and don’t you forget it."
Are you claiming Shayne is somebody else, too? You are pathetic.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 amHey, Zoo, it seems you are off topic by being on topic. :)
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 amSure Bart, atheists have no empirical evidence to prove there is no god
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 12:34 am
Thats RIGHT Flavius, and don’t you forget it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:35 am
Nor do they need it, until somebody has real evidence there is a god.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 am"Now that you’ve admitted they cannot prove their claims, you have confirmed that they merely “BELIEVE†there is no god, because they cannot prove it."
Wow, what kind of twisted logic is that? I cannot prove those green dwarves exist either. To believe in something that is unlikely to exist makes no sense. But you ignore common sense and the scientific method. And you are the one that said, earlier, "That is science". Funny.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 amIn a court of law it only takes the testimony of two or more reasonably credible witnesses to establish a fact. Well the religionists could produce MILLIONS.
So to just dismiss them as fairy tale is and proclaim themselves as the harbingers of knowledge is ludicrous.
Both religionists and atheists have their own set of beliefs, that neither can prove, thus both are belief systems.
The main difference is religionists tend to admit it, but the atheists seem to have trouble doing that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Sure Bart, so two atheists could go into a court of law and say they prayed to god to win the lottery and they didn't win and so they have proof positive he doesn't exist. In fact billions have probably prayed to win money and their prayers wwent unanswered. How many billions do you need to prove he doesn't exist. How about all those Chinese who pray for a boy baby and then have girls, where the hell is this alleged god of your and how many prayers have gone unanswered. Would an all powerful being ignore so many pleas? Empirical evidence he must not exist in your court of law.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 amIt doesn't speak well of Bart's intellectual integrity, that he cannot acknowledge the dictionaries' semantic inconsistency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 amHey, Zoo, it seems you are off topic by being on topic. :)
Comment by Juan C. — January 2, 2008 @ 12:37 am
I hate that when that happens. :-D
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 amBut you ignore common sense and the scientific method. And you are the one that said, earlier, “That is scienceâ€. Funny.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 12:39 am
that's been his modus operandus since he attacked any and all who weren't agnostics from his lofty perch of admitted ignorance. it's the main reason he hasn't "won", and never will.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 am"You don’t know what I believe or disbeleive Constantine, so once more you’re just talking out of your a$$."
Huh? You have a reading comprehension problem don't you. I would never admit to believing what you believe. Thanks so much though.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 amThey do if they want to be accepted as anything more than a belief.
No proof = BELIEF.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:39 am
You sure know how to be howlingly, screamingly wrong, I'll give you that.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 amI think George Carlin tells it better.
Religion is bullshit.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 amThats RIGHT Flavius, and don’t you forget it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:35 am
How can I forget. The level of ignorance required to perceive that religious belief can be simplified by semantics and what the dictionary says is breathtaking. Your argument has left me speechless.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 amBarty, do you believe in Allah? Do you believe in the Buddah? Do you believe in Isis? Do you believe in Thor? Do you believe in Zeus?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 amNo, it doesn’t speak well for your intelligence, that you are ARGUING WITH THE DICTIONARY.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Your selectivity just shows your intellectual dishonesty and proves the weakness of our argument, or you would admit that dictionaries have more than one definition for many of the words therein, thereby proving semantic inconsistency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 amNo, it doesn’t speak well for your intelligence, that you are ARGUING WITH THE DICTIONARY.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Just one example, coward.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 am"Or that you actually think that saying “I disbelieve that is true†is not the same thing as saying “I believe that is not trueâ€.
That speaks really poorly for your intellectual integrity."
Wow, really? He lacks intellectual integrity but you, who refuses to call belief in a god, faith, is pure? You are a semantics whore.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 amBart, what does the "a" in atheist stand for?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 amReally Zooey, how dare you be on topic when Bartlebee is busy trolling here like a true believer poser trying to take us off topic. He undoubtedly needs the trolling money for important things like donating to the Huckabee for Presdent campaign.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 amSabyen, I believe I'll have a Heineken if you're buying.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 amcome on people - this thread is supposed to be about huck's ignorance of an intelligence report - how the hell did religion get thrust into this debate?? - don't feed the trolls!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 amBartlebee, you can't prove the freaking spaghetti monster doesn't exist but you would be a freaking moron to believe it did. Get it???
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 amYou don’t know what I believe or disbeleive Constantine, so once more you’re just talking out of your a$$.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:38 am
OK Caligula, could you look up flip flop for us in the dictionary.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 amThat's even better than "just one example."
What's the "a" for, Bart?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 amKeith, let me order one with my Credit Card for you :)
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 amBart, what does the “a†in atheist stand for?
Comment by barfly — January 2, 2008 @ 12:46 am
Well the A in asexual means the absence of but that's not good enough for Emperor Barflebee.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 amCheers, Sabyen, British pint, please.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 am"come on people - this thread is supposed to be about huck’s ignorance of an intelligence report - how the hell did religion get thrust into this debate?? - don’t feed the trolls!!!"
I think it is 11:50 at night. I don't think there would be more than 2 posts for the rest of the night on Huck's idiocy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 amSuch a simple question, you'd think Bart could answer "what is the "a" in atheist stand for?"
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 amSorry idiot, but if you cannot prove something, then you cannot claim it as fact. It is merely something you believe. Maybe you have evidence to make it a viable theory, but if you cannot prove it, its just a belief.
Sorry you don’t like it but only a fool would argue that point.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:47 am
Wrong again, bart. too bad your dictionaries aren't as consistent as you are, perhaps they would be relevant to this discussion. You might calm down enough to realize that the non-believer vs. believer argument is over, and that this thread is about you and what an ass you are. I would say that this is conclusive proof that you have lost. Nobody buys your dreck, or your feeble-minded schoolboy reframing. Calling me names has certainly given you the high ground, right?
There's no loser like a poor loser.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 amWhat does the "A" in atheism stand for, Bart?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 amNo, it doesn’t speak well for your intelligence, that you are ARGUING WITH THE DICTIONARY.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:41 am
Bafflebee believes that you go straight to hell for arguing with the dictionary now. What god do you pray too Baff, Mirriam Webster?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 am"I didn’t “refuse†to call it anything you ignorant twit.
I refused to let you put words in my mouth.
The discussion of the word faith is a whole nuther topic, and not something I ever, ever brought up."
No, Barty, atheism is the lack of the ridiculous belief in god, i.e. faith. Of course it is part of the conversation.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 amWhen you all get this settled, would you please tell me which end of a hardboiled egg is the right end to open?
It's been bothering me for some time now.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 amI'd like a margarita on the rocks, extra salt please. :-)
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 amWhat does the “A†in atheism stand for, Bart?
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 amOhhh, I forgot. You are the arbiter of this conversation, Barty!!! My apologies. May your green dwarves bless you and carry you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 am"When you all get this settled, would you please tell me which end of a hardboiled egg is the right end to open?"
My belief is whatever side happens to be the bottom when you smack it!
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 amWhen you all get this settled, would you please tell me which end of a hardboiled egg is the right end to open?
It’s been bothering me for some time now.
Comment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 12:54 am
I'd go with the pointy end. It just looks cuter in the egg cup that way. But I'm certainly no expert on the subject.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 amWow if the people who wrote definitions knew that the basis for religious theories hinged on whether they called atheism a belief or a school of thought maybe they would have worded their description more carefully. Of course maybe Barfle needs to look up the definition of "belief" so he isn't so hung up on one perhaps less than perfectly worded definition.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 amYou are so full of crap, Barty. You have not once responded to me vis a vis belief. Or belief vs. faith. or believing in things that have evidence or believing in green dwarves. You have no standing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 amIf you go to dictionary.com, you'll find that fully half the definitions quoted say nothing about belief or doctrine. very inconvenient for bartie, I'd say!
and again, it proves only bart's intellectual dishonesty and willingness to cherrypick in a lame attempt to "win".
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 amI cant believe this is still going.
Atheism is denying the existence of God. The dictionary is not quite correct in saying atheism is a belief.
Theism is a belief
Atheism is denying that belief.
While theists will say its not a belief its truth.
And atheists will deny that truth[which at this point is objective/subjective]
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 amCan we move past this now?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 amWhat does the “A†in atheism stand for, Bart?
Surely you're not afraid to answer?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 am"See?
The poor wittle atheist calls people of faiths beliefs “ridiculousâ€.
Well I think you’re ridiculous."
Hmm, kill the messenger? You haven't addressed any of my points...ever.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 amRev. Huck is using Karl Rove's trick of saying he wants Christ in the White House. Now for 7 years we were told God was in the White House because God wanted Bush to be President. Something smells with that story as Satan has been in charge. Now Rev. Huck accepts gifts for favors and has to pay his bills. Looks like the Saudis are rooting for Rev. Huck to get the Oval Office. Rev. Huck will sell the United States and then lie about it like he did with the floating cross aka bookshelf without books. Who ever heard of a bookshelf floating anyway. But as usual Americans believe that story even after seeing it was false. Why because Rev. Huck is a Christian man who wouldn't lie like the other Christian men. We see another Wacko Republican looking to steal taxpayers money. The line is long. Don't bring Rev. Huck to California he might want to hit on Britney as she's available.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 amBut given the two, I’ll take the religionists everytime.
:|
At least they serve Jello.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 12:58 am
figures you'd be not only a cheap whore, but would get a shot in at the religionists as well.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 am"I’ll believe or not believe what I want, and I don’t need some idiot to tell me what to think."
You go right ahead. Not like you aren't always wrong anyway.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 amI'll quit - but whenever Bart starts posting this crap (regardless of who starts it) I'll be there to ask him my simple question.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 amwonder what Huckabee thinks? he probably agrees with bart. or maybe he'd ask britney.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 amPerhaps Barf needs to look up the word doctrine he neglected to glom onto when he was getting all caught up the his theory that atheism is a belief system.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 amI know I'm going to regret this, I just know it.
The Oxford English Dictionary, which is arguably the finest and most thorough dictionary of the language:
Atheism: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism)."
Atheist: "1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man"
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 amWell Barf could you look in your dictionary and try to find out which came first, the chicken or the egg, because the jury is still out everywhere else but your all knowing dictionary surely has the answer.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 am"Atheism is denying the existence of God. The dictionary is not quite correct in saying atheism is a belief."
I disagree. I think atheism is a belief. We can't prove it just as we can't prove green dwarves don't exist. We can't totally prove we even exist. What Barty refuses to acknowledge is the scientific method. What he refuses to acknowledge is we have good reason to believe there is no god or pink unicorns or the freaking tooth fairy. Because there is no evidence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 amComment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 1:05 am
Gee gummitch it looks like the Oxford Dictionary agrees with everybody here ... except ... Bart. But what the hell do the English know about English?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 am"And until atheists can PROVE their number one claim that a god does not exist, then you’re still wrong."
Talk about intellectually dishonest. The guy that believes in the omnipotent dude in the sky wants atheists to prove he doesn't exist. AGAIN, prove green dwarves don't exist. Don't you get that point, Barty???? You want us to prove a made up being doesn't exist?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 amHey, Barty, I didn't see doctrine or system of beliefs in your atheist definition. Why are you bringing that up?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 amAtheists cannot by their own admission, prove their number one claim, that there is no god.
When they can, then they will rise to a fact based system.
UNTIL they can, they will remain a belief based one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:02 am
That's the height of ignorance, and nothing but a faith-based lie. Nobody needs to prove the non-existence of something that has never been proven to exist. Nobody. You can claim that we need to prove the non-existence of god, unicorns, the flying spagetti monster or the tooth fairy, and have exactly the same credibility--none. you can cite the billions of believers, the hopeful, the brainwashed, scared or just plain crazy people that have had audiences with god, and yet not one has proof that would withstand scientific scrutiny, and more than a few have been locked up for their own protection. You are biased and ignorant, period. and you've done nothing but prove your bigotry and stupidity over hundreds of frenzied, ego-driven, angry, nasty posts for weeks. Get over yourself. You lost.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 amThats fine Sabyen, what people here are arguing here is opinion.
An argument of opinion has no winners or losers.
I think pickles are gross.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 am"Thanks for admitting you’re just an illiterate dunce, arguing with the dictionary."
Did you just go all O'Reilly on my ass? Did you just not only take my comments out of context but CHANGE them???
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 amI think pickles are gross.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 1:12 am
only if there are twelve dozen.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 amCan we move past this now?
Comment by Xisithrus
It's kind of funny to watch the discussion when you have the Maxim webpage open in another window. Maxim-TP senseless discussion-Maxim-TPsenseless discussion...
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 amDOCTRINE:A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:07 am
Can you see Bart where this kind of shoots your whole argument in the foot or is this one of the intricacies of language that some men have trouble comprehending. You know, why some people believe women have better language skills. Oops, I said believe.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 amI think pickles are gross.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Sweet pickles are gross, true. Gherkins are even more gross.
Garlic dill pickles, however, are -- well, I was going to say they are God's gift to the pastrami sandwich, but that might be a poor choice of words.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 am"I don’t care what you ask inbred, until you can get the dictionary to retract its defintion of atheism as a belief, then you’re wrong."
Now you're wobbling like a drunk. How could one be "wrong" for asking a question? Doesn't one usually have to make a declarative statement to be considered "wrong?"
I asked you a simple question - and you've run like a rabbit every time I asked it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 amDid you just go all O’Reilly on my ass? Did you just not only take my comments out of context but CHANGE them???
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Are you surprised? It's really all he has left. he's the last Japanese soldier on the island, in 1946.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 amI think pickles are gross.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Well sir you had better take that back, those are fighting words! Oh, have you ever tried pickled heads?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 am"Thats fine Sabyen, what people here are arguing here is opinion.
An argument of opinion has no winners or losers.
I think pickles are gross."
Ok, so, TP is worthless then because everybody here has an opinion. And most here agree with me and you about Bush. It is all opinion. If you don't have one about religion, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to poo-poo the whole thing because it is below you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 amIt’s kind of funny to watch -Juan
Pointlessly so.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 amHey Bart I'm still waiting for you to get back to me on that chicken or egg thing. If the dictionary can't give you the final answer perhaps you could ask the Wizard of Oz. Or maybe an oracle. Maybe a Ouija board.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 amIt’s kind of funny to watch the discussion when you have the Maxim webpage open in another window. Maxim-TP senseless discussion-Maxim-TPsenseless discussion…
Comment by Juan C. — January 2, 2008 @ 1:13 am
LMAO!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 amI think pickles are gross.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 1:12 am
Well, you'd be right if you were talking about sweet pickles. Blech!
But dill pickles are divine. Yum!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 am"t’s kind of funny to watch the discussion when you have the Maxim webpage open in another window. Maxim-TP senseless discussion-Maxim-TPsenseless discussion…"
As I just said to X, it is your right to think a discussion is senseless. But the conversation between trickle-down morons and normal people is as well. Is anybody going to change there minds even if we were on-topic? Honestly.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 amOk, so, TP is worthless then because everybody here has an opinion. -Sabyen
I didnt say anything about TP. I am not going to argue with you, or anyone over an opinion you, or they, hold.
The sky is green.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 amGarlic dill pickles, however, are — well, I was going to say they are God’s gift to the pastrami sandwich, but that might be a poor choice of words.
Comment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 1:14 am
Do you think they are God's gift to pastrami or do you BELIEVE they are God's gif to pastrami? We have to get it technically correct so Bart doesn't go all postal on us.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 amOh, have you ever tried pickled heads?
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 1:15 am
That should have been a great party thread. I wasted that picture on y'all. :P
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 am"You’re just an idiot, arguing with the dictionary, like the rest of your ratpack."
I love how you just ignore any argument you can't handle.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 amI think pickles are tasty and I like them.
Can somebody find in the dictionary if I like them or not?
Heh.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 amAre pickled heads dill or sweet?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 amThe sky is green.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 1:19 am
Dill pickle sky...
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 amAre pickled heads dill or sweet?
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 1:21 am
When I make them, they're always dill.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 am"I didnt say anything about TP. I am not going to argue with you, or anyone over an opinion you, or they, hold.
The sky is green."
Yes, you are. You find this conversation to be pointless. That is ok. But it is like countless conversations on TP and any other blog and any other real life conversation. Likely nobody will change their minds but people still talk. You don't like the topic. Understandable. You said "Can we move past this now?" I doubt we ever will, just like every other debate we ever have.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 amI think pickles are tasty and I like them. -Juan
I hate you!!! Pickles are gross, onlt trickle down morons like pickles!! Hang the anti-american pickle lovers!!
[I'm kidding Juan] =)
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 amCan somebody find in the dictionary if I like them or not?
Heh.
Comment by Juan C. — January 2, 2008 @ 1:20 am
LMAO, furreal.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 am"I am answering every reasonable question on the topic thrown at me by you illiterates."
No, you aren't. Can you tell me you believe in pink unicorns?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 amYou’re just an idiot, arguing with the dictionary, like the rest of your ratpack.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I'm asking a simple question that you cannot answer without acknowledging the dictionaries' sematic inconsistencies. From an intellectual standpoint it reveals you as inherently shallow and uncontemplative of obvious contradiction (look the word "contradiction "up sometime - "contra" doesn't mean "with," anymore than "a" means "for."
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 amBecause until you can prove it, you’ve got nothing more than a belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:16 am
No, the proponent of the belief has no evidence to support the position, so from a scientific viewpoint there is no evidence of the existence of this supposed sky god. Provide that proof and I will examine the evidence then see for myself if it actually proves your/the proponent of the belief's claim.
The A in Atheism means Without, theism means belief.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 amThus Atheism means literally without belief.
Likely nobody will change their minds but people still talk. -Well Hello.
I find it pointless because opinons are not factual even though many think they are and will argue endlessly to prove their opinion [belief]
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 amHang the anti-american pickle lovers!!
Comment by Xisithrus
Hehehe. Zep, BTW, pickles are those strange green things that are sliced and put into hamburgers right?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 amI do not believe that deities exist. I do not need to prove their non-existence, which I cannot. The burden of proof rests with the people who wish to claim that deities do exist. So far, I have seen nothing that those who believe in deities have produced that has convinced me that they are right and I am am wrong. I find their reasoning often to be circular. I remain unconvinced that deities exist. I have nothing to prove, for I am not the one making the claim that something exists.
Good night, everyone. And Peace on Earth in the coming New Year.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 amI think, no I BELIEVE, that most of us agree that the only real dickweed here is Bartlebee. And if at least two of us went into court and testified that yes, Bartlebee was IN FACT the only dickweed here who would rebut that testimony. There seems to be only one rebuttal witness and he probably wouldn't have any credibility with the court because he'd be lugging his four dictionaries with him and not one of them would deny he was a dickweed and if the dictionary doesn't say he isn't how can it be so, etc. etc. etc.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 am"I am answering every reasonable question on the topic thrown at me by you illiterates."
I guess he considers "what does the 'a' in atheist stand for," to be "unreasonable," because he's refused to answer it yet, even after repeated requests to reply.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 amHehehe. Zep, BTW, pickles are those strange green things that are sliced and put into hamburgers right? -Juan
Yes, pickled cucumbers
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 amI am answering every reasonable question on the topic thrown at me by you illiterates
Bartlebee, does your dictionary DEFINE what is a "reasonable question" and what isn't? Because I'd thing that was subjective much like whether atheism is a belief system or a lack of belief in another system.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 amBawk, Bawk, Bart.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 am"I find it pointless because opinons are not factual even though many think they are and will argue endlessly to prove their opinion [belief]"
No opinions are factual!!! Everybody creates there own facts. Everybody believes they are right because of the facts they have in their minds. I believe it is a fact that there is no evidence that there is a god. Other people believe it is a FACT there is a god. I believe it is a fact that Bush is spying on the American people. The hard right believes Bush is spying on terrorists. It is the way the world works.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 amAnd I’m right here, but I don’t see any questions that I haven’t handled, or cannot handle.
Put it up dickweed.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:21 am
you haven't gotten one answer right, if that's what you call "handling" the questions.
"The theists have produced thousands of years of evidence to support their claims. You may not like the evidence, but its evidence nonetheless.
So if you want to confront the evidence, and deny it, thats one thing.
Thats between you and the religionists.
But to make the claim that they are ALL wrong, the BILLIONS of them, ALL WRONG, and you’re right, then you’d better be able to back up that claim, Nostradumbass.
Because until you can prove it, you’ve got nothing more than a belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:16 am"
well, I realize that your intellect is vey limited, so I'll keep this simple. if one of those billions of claims could be or had been scientifically proven, then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion, would we? In 1500, everybody knew the Earth was flat. Scientists were executed for claiming otherwise. Congratulations on being a member of the church hierarchy of 1500. your inability to process facts is a severe impediment to your ability to present a serious argument. that's probably why you've been so soundly defeated and humiliated. Even the believers and faithful here know that you're completely full of shit. But thanks for proving it, over and over again.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:31 amThe A in Atheism means Without, theism means belief.
Thus Atheism means literally without belief.
Comment by Wayne — January 2, 2008 @ 1:26 am
** SMACK **
And Bart goes down for the count, 1, 2, 3, 4 and while his trainer is telling him to stay down he comes back with ...
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 am"I think, no I BELIEVE, that most of us agree that the only real dickweed here is Bartlebee."
Well, THAT is a provable hypothesis.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 am"Congratulations on being a member of the church hierarchy of 1500."
That's what I was saying (sort of): Bart can't acknowledge inconsistencies, even when they're pointed out to him; a dogmatic belief in "authority" over common sense.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 amNo opinions are factual!!! -Sabyen
Like I said, people believe their opinions and then they put them on others. Thats projectionism.
Lets say you call me a moron. Thats fine, thats your opinion, but its not a fact.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 amThe A mean no or non. It means no belief in theism.
Another way of saying that is saying they believe theism is incorrect.
In the ABSECENCE OF PROOF, its still just a belief.
No matter what word games you want to play, they ALL COME BACK TO BELIEF.
ATHEISM IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF THEIR CLAIMS, MUST REMAIN A BELIEF.
PERIOD.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:34 am
that's what you believe. it is not fact.
PERIOD.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 amIs denial belief?
I deny that I have ever drank alcohol.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 am"The A mean no or non. It means no belief in theism."
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Winner!
You used "no," meaning "anti" -belief.
Glad to see you're in the real world.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 amAtheism is a belief.
Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:28 am
No, A-Theism means literally, by it's structure without belief. It is built into the structure of the word.
Prove your supposition in a more logical manner please.
Example: show me the scientific evidence of YOUR CLAIM. I do not have to prove the Non-existence, because I made no claim, you/the proponent of the belief did.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 amI believe that I have never drunk alcohol, I misremembered
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 am"Like I said, people believe their opinions and then they put them on others. Thats projectionism.
Lets say you call me a moron. Thats fine, thats your opinion, but its not a fact."
Wow, you are trying to paint me in a bad light with your own words. My point is that people do project and and people believe a whole lot of crap. My point is why are you arguing some threads while others are below you?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 amStop arguing sementics with Barty. He is right that atheism is technically a belief because it can never be proven or disproven. The FACT is neither can unicorns, vampires, fairies, or demons. Some beliefs are more valid than others because of the scientific method and the rules of evidence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 amIn fact, are you illiterate morons actually arguing that atheism does not claim that there is no god?
lol, are you morons, actually trying to make that claim?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:35 am
atheism=non-belief
What if I claim you killed my brother? if I have no brother, is my claim true? You can't prove you didn't kill my brother, and if we go to court, I can't prove you did. Will you go to prison? Highly unlikely.
I claim there is no god. If you can't show me god, am I wrong? No, I'm not. Do I need to show you "no god"? Of course not. But, I can, easily.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 amOf course there is no god.
What God could let this stupid discussion take place?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 amWhatever ridiculous thing you can imagine (i.e. a time-travelling English-speaking fire-breathing frog) somebody else does not believe in. Doesn't mean it is realistic or even close to being supported by evidence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 amDENIAL
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 amMy point (which Bart repeatedly missed) was that his reliance on the dictionary was dogmatic, in that every other example of "a" wordings carried negative - or anti - semantic connotations. This sort of reliance on authoritative expertise over common-sense, even when shown clear evidence of semantic inconsistency, was what I was rubbing his nose in, not so much the merits of "belief vs nonbelief.
And that's it for me, tomight.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 amOk, when your "scientific" evidence is posting quotes from other posters, your evidence has reached the point of being simply ridiculous.
Night all.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 amMerriam Webster - the DEFINITIVE AMERICAN english dictionary... There's no SYSTEM to it, other than the SYSTEM that PROVES WHAT AN ILLITERATE MORON BART IS! The SCHOLAR OF ANTIQUITIES that doesn't know GREEK ROOT WORDS and QUALIFIERS!! ROTFL!!
Main Entry:
athe·ism Listen to the pronunciation of atheism
Pronunciation:
\ˈÄ-thÄ“-ËŒi-zÉ™m\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date:
1546
1archaic : ungodliness wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
For those 'TARDED like bark, DISBELIEVE is a LACK OF BELIEF not a BELIEF...
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 ambart has been quoting two posters and 4 dictionaries, all of whom are wrong. good boy, bart, now roll over, play dead.
please.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 amBartlebee, you DO know HuffPo is a Clinton mouthpiece right? Congratulations for your quote.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 amBart's now STUPID ENOUGH to post OPINION PIECES as FACTS! ROTFL!!! You ARE A REPUBLICAN BART!!! ROTFL!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 amSorry, no, they are an Obama mouthpiece. Pretty Christian.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 amBart once said that there are LOTS OF DIFFERENT AGNOSTICS - yet the POOR LITTLE GIRL is saying there's ONLY ONE ATHEISM!!! ROTFL!! What a DISGUSTING LITTLE BIGOTED NERD!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 amAtheism as a Stealth Religion
By David Sloan Wilson
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM
Posted December 14, 2007 | 04:50 PM (EST)
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:46 am
Oh, good, another opinion, based on fear and ignorance. When you lose, you sure lose BIG, bartie.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 amBreathe, people, breathe. That's all that matters.
Night. Take care.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 amHmm, Bart, sorry, looks like Merriam Webster says disbelief. Since you have been following the words of a dictionary for hours...you might want to apologize to those you smeared.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 amHey Bart, I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find a POSTER that says YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN FUNDING ISLAMIST! I guess in YOUR WORLD it's TRUE!! ROTFL!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 amSecond, when my audience is a bunch of illiterate idiots who IGNORE the DICTIONARY,
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:48 am
ROTFL!! PURE PROJECTION!! Where AMERICAN ENGLISH is concerned, Merriam Webster is THE DICTIONARY - meaning YOU'RE A MORON AND A LIAR!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 amIn English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[10] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 am"Obviously nothing will sway a moron who argues with the dictionary though."
Are you arguing with Webster? Cause if you are, I am ok with that. You calling anybody who doesn't agree with a dictionary a moron would make you look pretty stupid though.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 amMerriam Webster is THE DICTIONARY in American there SPORT!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 am"And NOTHING anyones going to say is going to change that fact."
Be honest, little boy, nothing anybody is going to say will change your mind.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 amAthesim cannot prove its primary contention that god or gods do not exist, thus it is merely a BELIEF.
And NOTHING anyones going to say is going to change that fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:51 am
ROTFL!!! It's not the RESPONSIBILITY of people to DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE of something - GROWN UPS know that - but CHILDREN LIKE YOU still believe in SANTA CLAUSE and the EASTER BUNNY!! ROTFL!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 amI believe that Bartlebee, no I KNOW that Bartlebee is as bad as any other troll in disrupting a thread. And while this one, as Sabyen pointed out was going nowhere any way at this time of night, it's important to remember that Bartlebee is just being a good little soldier in the war against progressive bloggers. And while his system has given him leeway that other trolls have been denied the point is that his mission is the same as theirs' and nothing more. And if he truly believes that his game of semantics as well as quotes from others taken out of context makes him superior to anybody then he is certainly a Republican.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 amIn early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious". -wikipedia
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 amObviously nothing will sway a moron who argues with the dictionary though.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:48 am
Well, if this were a Scrabble game, or jeopardy, you might have a leg to stand on. But the dictionary doesn't cut it, especially when you misrepresent the full scope of definitions given. Your behavior is that of an ignorant, brainwashed wingnut troll. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself by now. You've been in a tiny minority for weeks, because you're wrong. You've been thoroughly schooled, in every way, from every angle, and you have refused to learn anything. You're a loser. You should know better than to argue with a likelong non-believer over atheism, something you know nothing about, apart from your cherry-picked dictionary definitions. How shallow can you get?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 am"Merriam Webster is THE DICTIONARY in American there SPORT!"
Yup, that is the one we had in school.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 amI pointed out to this festering carbunkle on the a$$ of this blog about a month and a half ago, about 3000 times too, that my comments ONLY apply to those calling themselves atheists, who DENY the existence of a god or gods.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:51 am
Don't believe is DENY in your book? ROTFL!! You're STUPID!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 amObviously nothing will sway a moron who argues with the dictionary though.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Here we go again. RHF just posted a credible dictionary definition of atheist that is inconsistent with the ones provided by Bart. Does Bart acknowlege any such inconsistency?
Nope.
Shallow and uncontemplative - I sure called that one right.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 amWhat a DISGUSTING LITTLE BIGOTED NERD!
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 2, 2008 @ 1:48 am
NERD - TURD? You say potAto and I say potAHto.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 am"I believe that Bartlebee, no I KNOW that Bartlebee is as bad as any other troll in disrupting a thread. And while this one, as Sabyen pointed out was going nowhere any way at this time of night, it’s important to remember that Bartlebee is just being a good little soldier in the war against progressive bloggers."
Ugh, I hate being the naysayer. I just have no faith in the human race :) Except for the minority (and the majority here at TP, even when I disagree)
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 amAthesim cannot prove its primary contention that god or gods do not exist, thus it is merely a BELIEF.
And NOTHING anyones going to say is going to change that fact.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:51 am
that's not a fact, it's just your uneducated, misguided, ignorant, bigoted, fearful opinion.
and THAT'S a fact!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 amI know my God, and frankly I am not bothered if people deny my belief, why should I?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 amNONE SAY IT IS NOT.
Thus, its FOUR BARTLEBEE, ZERO numbskulls.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:55 am
That's a lie, and you're a liar. How low will you sink?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 amThe dictionary definition of "Atheism" may be accurate, but consider the difference between:
1) believing there is NO god
2) not believing there is a god
I think these are too completely different things. For example, I don't believe in extra-terrestrials, but I DON'T believe extra-terrestrials don't exist.
I't is a matter of what you feel is needed to comfortable in your own thought processes. Some people believe that there must be a God, or Gods in whatever form they believe it or they take. For others, it is simply not necessary for the existence of such a being in order for them to live, love and be happy.
Now, perhaps this is the difference between Atheism and atheism, but I for one, think that in many cases, folks who call themselves atheists, or others choose to label that way are in fact simply not making believe in the existence of God a necessary part of their being.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 amHere we go again. RHF just posted a credible dictionary definition of atheist that is inconsistent with the ones provided by Bart. Does Bart acknowlege any such inconsistency?
Nope.
Shallow and uncontemplative - I sure called that one right.
Comment by barfly — January 2, 2008 @ 1:54 am
Yeah, poor BART was STUPID ENOUGH to claim that A-Theism meant ANTI-THEISM in Greek - and also claimed to be a BIBLICAL SCHOLAR (an act that would REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK). Poor TARD was too stupid to know that A-Theism meant WITHOUT Theism not AGAINST Theism! And when I SCHOOLED him, he resorted to some LAME IRRELEVANT DICTIONARIES - even AFTER I REPEATEDLY supplied the Merriam Webster definitions and the explanation of Greek. That in my book says INTELLECTUAL and MORAL FRAUD! That's as REPUBLICAN as they COME - a LYING HYPOCRITE!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 amOxford-English Dictionary definition of belief, to go with Wayne's definition of atheism:
belief
• noun
1. a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2. a firmly held opinion.
3. (belief in) trust or confidence in.
4. religious faith.
Note how BART always, without exception, uses only the definitions that fit his preconceived notions. Note also that he never, ever uses the single most trusted English dictionary in the entire world, the one that every scholar of the language uses above all others.
Everything is a belief system. Science is a belief system. Scientists have TRUST or CONFIDENCE IN science, because it is self-correcting, required peer review, the most fundamental tenets can be challenged by new evidence, it required repeatable evidence, etc.
Asserting that atheism is a belief means absolutely, positively NOTHING. It is a diversion. It is sleight of mind.
Regardless, theists bear 100% of the burden of proof of their POSITIVE assertion. The defender of the negative stance, which is not an assertion as it requires no burden of proof, merely needs to prove that the party making the positive assertion cannot prove their assertion.
Also, it completely depends upon your definition of deity. A deity that is omni-anything (omniscience, omnipotent, omni-benevolent, etc) fundamentally requires paradox to exist. A being more powerful than ourselves is entirely within the realms of logic, reason and possibility. An omniscience, omnipotent, omni-benevolent deity is not.
Testimonials are not ample evidence, when cultural bias, confirmation bias, groupthink, and status-quo bias are all enormous factors impacting said testimonials.
Finally, BART, you are most assuredly the troll here, and I, like others, am quite sick and tired of your ridiculous, lengthy, ranting derailing of threads. I will report you every time you do so. This is one such time. You are more than welcome to do the same. Call it a hunch, but I'm pretty damned sure it will take a lot of effort to actually report me to such a degree that I am banned.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 am"Yea unfortunately for you Merriam Webster does NOT state athesim is NOT a belief."
What?????
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 amOf course the rest of us don’t NEED a dictionary to know that when someone makes a claim that they cannot prove, that that person is merely relating a BELIEF.
The rest of us KNOW that that which is not proven remains a belief.
We don’t need dictionaries to help us understand simple things like that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:58 am
So it's only a BELIEF that there's NO SANTA CLAUS and TOOTH FAIRY!! ROTFL you're a MORON!
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 amI know my God, and frankly I am not bothered if people deny my belief, why should I?
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 1:56 am
Well said. I don't eat meat, yet would never knock a steak from someone's plate, any more than I would ever preach my non-belief to a person of faith.
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 am10 out of 10 posters on this thread believe Bartlebee is a jackass. Those are pretty hard statistics to overcome.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 amYea unfortunately for you Merriam Webster does NOT state athesim is NOT a belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 1:55 am
ROTFL, except the FACT that DISBELIEF means WITHOUT-BELIEF!! ROTFL!!! You're a MORON BART!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 amDefinition of Disbelief!
To NOT BELIEVE - the opposite of HAVING A BELIEF!!
ROTFL Bart is a COMPLETE IDIOT MORON that can't even comprehend BASIC ENGLISH! Yep, he's a REPUBLICAN!! ROTFL!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 amMy Webster's ninth edition says:
Atheism a:"A disbelief in the existence of diety." b:"the doctrine that there is no diety.
A toss up.
That shows major inconsistencies in wording.
Bart strikes out again.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 amSo you’re claiming that atheists do not believe that there is no god?
Is that what you’re saying you half witted twit?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:01 am
ROTFL!! So you're claiming that you aren't OXYGEN DEPRIVED from having your HEAD UP YOUR @SS!! ROTFL You're STUPID! DISHONEST and ILLITERATE!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 amI am not sure who you mean by "us", Barty. You have said that several times and I keep looking around for support for you. I just haven't seen it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 am10 out of 10 illiterate idiots is not a reasonable sampling.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:00 am
Well know that we know YOUR OPINION and those of your NINE FELLOW BIGOTED ILLITERATE TROLL FRIELDS, lets sample PROGRESSIVES!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 amThere are Christians on this site, Barty. And I respect them. You, are nothing but a contrarian with nothing to offer but hatred.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 amPOOR BART is STILL TOO STUPID to know that MERRIAM WEBSTER is THE DICTIONARY!!
ROTFL, She's got her head so far up her *ss, she's breathing out of her navel!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 amI dont think Bart is a jackass. So we disagree. BFD
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 am"But if you can provide just ONE DICTIONARY DEFINTION that states what you state, that is “ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEFâ€, then you can sell your contradictory dictionary bullsh$t."
I am wondering if you missed the Merriam-Webster definition or you held your hands over your ears and yelled "LALALALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU).
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 amBut until then, the dictionaries all agree, that atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no god.
Comment by BARTLEBE
Nope. Websters' contradicts your assertion.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 amIt is the belief that there is no god -Bart
They are denying, I think, your belief, not creating a new one.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 amThe burden of proof is on YOU now BART! Prove to us you are not a troll because we believe 100% that you are nothing more than that and we will treat you as such from now on. I know you're not worried though because like the good troll you are you will just change your name again, right, IWORFEUS?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 am10 out of 10 illiterate idiots is not a reasonable sampling.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:00 am
It could be a thousand, or a million, and a jackass like you would never allow his "belief" in his superiority to be shaken by mere facts. Your cheap semantic tricks are transparent and juvenile. You are a worthless anti-intellectual rabble-rouser, a bigot, and an ignorant person. Nobody here is illiterate, not even you. You have chosen to distort and cherry-pick, and you have been caught and outed. Your monitor must be soaking wet with your spittle as you rage forever into the darkness that is your twisted, egomaniacal worldview, vainly trying to convince intelligent liberals that your bigotry should be accepted dogma. Too bad you can't be voted off this island, you'd be gone in seconds.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 am"I’ll add WEBSTERS to the list."
Uhh, you are ignoring one definition in favor of the other?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 amThanks idiot, for proving atheism is a DOCTRINE or BELIEF, that there is no god.
I’ll add WEBSTERS to the list.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
And thanks for showing that 'ol shallow, dogmatic side, Bart, even when proven wrong. I said the Websters was a toss up, but you can only see your hyperpartisan vision of reality.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 amBut until then, the dictionaries all agree, that atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is no god.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:03 am
Liar.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 am"The burden of proof is on YOU now BART! Prove to us you are not a troll because we believe 100% that you are nothing more than that and we will treat you as such from now on."
True, Shayne. He keeps saying he is not a troll but the evidence shows he is. And belief or disbelief of faith or whatever...I don't care. The available evidence shows he is a troll.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 amdisbelieve that you people are not illiterate idiots.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:09 am
How dare you DENY my idiotness. =)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 amI dont think Bart is a jackass. So we disagree. BFD
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 2:05 am
Well then what kind of ass do you think he is? :)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 amUhh, you are ignoring one definition in favor of the other?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 2:07 am
That particular phenomenon is called, repeat it with me children, confirmation bias.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 amI believe I have proven 1000 times over that atheism is a belief system.
:|
I disbelieve that I have not proven 1000 times over that atheism is a belief system.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:10 am
thus, a belief, not a fact. you've only proven your own lack of intelligence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 amWell then what kind of ass do you think he is? :)
Comment by Shayne
We all have asses =)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 am"Rather than just acknowledging they are all saying the same thing, that is a DISBELIEF in something is the same thing as a BELIEF that that thing is not true."
Wow.
Semantically speaking, "disbelief" is gotten after the fact, not before.
You've put the semantic cart before the horse.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 amThat particular phenomenon is called, repeat it with me children, confirmation bias.
Comment by Moderation — January 2, 2008 @ 2:11 am
Not an uncommon practice among wingnut trolls, as I recall.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 amI believe you people are illiterate idiots.
:|
I disbelieve that you people are not illiterate idiots.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:09 am
And I believe you have insulted me, when I have not done so to you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 amI believe you need to take careful look at your posts.
Your method of debate has become that of a troll.
It's a shame what started out (and continues to be if only you filter out the noise) as an interesting, nuanced argument has rapidly devolved into a name calling contest. I'm sorry to see it, and choose to no longer read or post to this thread. Sorry for the brief intrusion. Now, back to your regularly schedule insults...
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 am"I believe I have proven 1000 times over that atheism is a belief system."
You don't understand the term proof. If you did you would understand NOTHING can be proven and moreover you would understand that backs up your assertions. I don't fear you will understand that anytime soon, though. You aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 amSCROLL UP, dickhead, and find the comment where I say I am not a troll.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:11 am
Well then now you're admitting you are a troll?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 amI believe you need to take careful look at your posts.
Your method of debate has become that of a troll.
Comment by Wayne — January 2, 2008 @ 2:13 am
practice makes perfect. bart has used bullying techniques for a long time. he is very insecure, and engages in lots of dick-waving and snide nasty, schoolyard name-calling when his argument has been shredded. nothing new. every board has at least one.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 amWe all have asses =)
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 2:12 am
True, but we don't all have the need to show our asses the way Bart does. ;)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 am"Another lie from a proven liar.
SCROLL UP, dickhead, and find the comment where I say I am not a troll."
One...again, "proof" is pretty subjective. Two, you have always been a troll. I knew it since the first time I came back when you were attacking tombaker.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 am"To believe me, all one has to do is accept not one, but FIVE dictionary defintions."
And ignore the contrary definitions. Get a clue buddy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 amTo believe me, all one has to do is accept not one, but FIVE dictionary defintions.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:15 am
most dictionaries offer several, often contradictory, definitions. to believe an idiot like you, one would have to choose only the definitions one needed to try to "win", which is intellectually lazy and dishonest. this is your methodology, and it has led to the general scorn being deservedly heaped on you. you're cheap and transparent, and you can never win this argument with such obviously lame tactics. all you need to do is prove there is a god, and you will win. that's all you need to do.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 amYea, TEN to ONE.
:|
What a “bullyâ€.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:17 am
simple proof of your errors.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 amYeah, poor BART was STUPID ENOUGH to claim that A-Theism meant ANTI-THEISM in Greek - and also claimed to be a BIBLICAL SCHOLAR (an act that would REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK). Poor TARD was too stupid to know that A-Theism meant WITHOUT Theism not AGAINST Theism! And when I SCHOOLED him, he resorted to some LAME IRRELEVANT DICTIONARIES - even AFTER I REPEATEDLY supplied the Merriam Webster definitions and the explanation of Greek. That in my book says INTELLECTUAL and MORAL FRAUD! That’s as REPUBLICAN as they COME - a LYING HYPOCRITE!
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 2, 2008 @ 1:58 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 amI'm not trying to start up a different argument or anything , but I was always quite cynical of anyone claiming to be a "Biblical Scholar" , anyway.
I always believed the original Bible was supposedly written in Ancient/Old Hebrew ; is that correct , and isn't Old Hebrew a language that has long been a dead language ?
How can someone be a master or be able to translate a long since dead language ?
What is you motivation, Bartlebee? I asked you the first time I saw you. Is it a personal thing? Do you want to get kicked off of TP? Are you trying to martyr yourself? If that is the case TP has been more than patient with you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 amTrue, but we don’t all have the need to show our asses the way Bart does. ;)
Asses should be seen, not heard. =P
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 amTo believe me, all one has to do is accept not one, but FIVE dictionary defintions.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:15 am
...and ignore the definitions of the words you are using to prove your assertion. The definitions of "belief" are multiple, yet you use a narrow definition. Confirmation bias. The definitions of "doctrine" are multiple, yet you use a narrow definition. Confirmation bias. So one, and so forth.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 am"Yea, yea we get it.
You’re an idiot, arguing with the dictionary.
Got it."
And so are you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 amSo Bart you don't admit or deny you are a troll. Just another example of your manipulation of the facts. You're consistent at least. And we're all asses buy you are just perfectly brilliant, right? It must be hard to be you. In fact one has to wonder why you'd even bother to have this discussion with a bunch of "illiterates" like us. I'd think you'd either have to be getting paid, like a troll, or you're just an idiot. Which one is it Bart? Are you paid or just an idiot, we'll give you time to look it up.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 amAsses should be seen, not heard. =P
Comment by Xisithrus — January 2, 2008 @ 2:22 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:24 amAnd also wiped , after being called into 'action' .......
"I studied the bible as a young man. I’ve probably forgotten more about it then most evangelical christians ever knew about it. But I am not a scholar, expert or anything else. Just a guy who’s actually read it."
Did you ignore the parts you didn't like...like the dictionary?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 amYou’re an idiot, arguing with the dictionary.
Got it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:21 am
see, actually, I read all the definitions, not just the ones I agreed with. I went to the sources YOU posted, and found that dictionaries are not final arbiters, only compendiums of usages, both accepted and arcane. You have relied on dictionaries to your detriment, becasue they only serve to weaken your argument, by offering other definitions, completely contrary to the ones you have chosen. Unfortunately for you, bart, I am smarter, more experienced and wiser than you, and I have defeated you at every turn. and I have had much aid and assistance from several regulars here, both presently and during your endless tantrum in December. I am quite sure that we all have different viewpoints on faith, spirituality and the like, and yet it seems virtually unanimous that you are wrong, and nasty to boot. What a shame, your new year will suck as badly as last year for you. You are our very own Born Loser. Congratulations.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 am"The definitions of “belief†are multiple, yet you use a narrow definition. Confirmation bias. The definitions of “doctrine†are multiple, yet you use a narrow definition. Confirmation bias. So one, and so forth."
Comment by Moderation
Wow, this confirmation bias sounds like a major personality flaw. Is a particular mind-set suseptable? I'm thinking those with a tendency to embrace dogma in it's many forms?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 amIn early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious".
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 amUntil then, my FOUR defintions, to your NONE, trump every time.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Except for Webster's, which says disbelief.
You keep missing that one.
Cognitive bias.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 am"When you can provide ONE dictionary that states atheism is NOT a belief, then Ill listen.
Until then, my FOUR defintions, to your NONE, trump every time."
So, you are just going to ignore the Merriam-Webster definition you didn't like. I am not surprised. You always did remind me of a Rush listening tool.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 amUnless you're now arguing that "disbelief means belief," that is.
That would be crazy, Bart.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 amI posted this earlier bart.
early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious"
Clearly the word means denial.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 am"You keep missing that one.
Cognitive bias."
Or conscious denial. Either way.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 amAmerican Heritage Dict:
disbelief in or DENIAL OF...
Princeton:
a lack of belief in...
American Heritage New Dict.:
denial that there is...
that's me googlimg your source, bart. you're done, finished, ruined. Like I said, dictionaries are your Achilles heel, besides your own obdurate stupidity and stubbornness. You have no game, boy. very weak. Everybody here has trashed you, you've been shut out.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 amBart, you cant take part in a debate then declare victory.
Atheism either means one is pious or impious.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 amI meant atheism means impious, not pious.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 am"Thus, when the dictionary states atheism IS a belief, no other interpretation can be interpreted as it being NOT a belief.
The one defintion, excludes the other."
Uhh, doesn't the non-belief description exclude the belief interpretation? You show your bias.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 amWow, this confirmation bias sounds like a major personality flaw. Is a particular mind-set suseptable? I’m thinking those with a tendency to embrace dogma in it’s many forms?
Comment by barfly — January 2, 2008 @ 2:31 am
As a matter of fact, confirmation bias is quite strongly present in those with stronger religious OR ideological beliefs. It is also one of the common traits of authoritarians. Moreover, people with such strong beliefs can actually see evidence against their beliefs as evidence FOR their beliefs, because they paradoxically see any evidence against their stance as weaker than that supporting their stance, and such "weak" (in their mind) evidence actually reinforces their "strong" evidence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 ambart has been run off the field, destroyed, trashed, humiliated and stomped. the second he relied on cherry-picking definitions and editions of dictionaries, it was over. Imagine, relying on a dictionary for a discussion like this. How childish, no wonder he lost so completely. Probably scarred for life; such a big, empty ego will be deeply traumatized.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 am"The one defintion, excludes the other."
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Now that's definitely crazy talk.
I provided a Websters' definition that said "disbelief" in the very first definition - not the second, which an illiterate might mistake - but the very first definition. Try and spin that, Bart. What dictionary places the opposite meaning first?
Get real.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 amAll they have is a belief. When they prove it, then they’ll have a fact based system, but not until.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:41 am
Being wrong 1300 times will never make you right. and you are still wrong.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 amI don’t argue against that. In fact, I argue FOR that. Thats what I’ve been saying all along. -Bart
Actually, you have been posting what the dictionary says, and not what you think. IE arguing with the dictionary.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 amMSN Encarta dictionary "unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities"
dictionary.com "—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief"
Want some more, moron?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 amI dont much care what the dictionary says bart, just say what you think, and I will accept your opinion and respect it even though I may not agree with it. =)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:46 amWant some more, moron?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 2:44 am
it matters not, Sabyen91, bart is not interested in facts or proof, just his own self-aggrandizement. He psyche is fragile, his mind is weak, he misuses his intellect because he has had much rejection in his life, and must be the "top dog' at all times, in every situation, no matter how many potential friends or allies he alienates. Character flaws would be a kind description of his situation.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:48 am"They cannot PROVE this denial. They cannot prove these religions false, or that god does not exist.
All they have is a belief. When they prove it, then they’ll have a fact based system, but not until."
Actually, until you can disprove the existence of pink unicorns you are nothing but waffling little girl.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 amComment by Moderation
Now I see the reason for all the kneeling: dizzyness.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 amI think all numbers, as PI, are infinite.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 amOnce the dictionary defined, ATHEISM is a BELIEF, the argument was over.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:45 am
Once the same dictionary stated "atheism is the denial of the existence of god", you lost. the argument was indeed over, and you were on the losing end, because of your absolutist, doctrinaire, dogmatic, blind stubbornness. Just a little wiggle room would have left you with a victory of sorts, but you had to insist that every non-believer was an Atheist by your CHOSEN definition. as a result, you lost, and destroyed your credibility in the process.
You're a lousy, weak debater.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 amI “thinkâ€, that atheism, like religion, is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
Fine, thats your opinion. =)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 amAll that exists is atoms and empty space; the rest is but opinion -Democritus of Abdera
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 am"In Base 10 Mathematics for example, working with positive numbers, 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Thus the expression of 2+2 equaling 4, excludes the expression that 2+2 equals 5.
The expression of 2+2 equaling 4, exludes any other expressions of the sum.
Once you’ve established the fact, the opposing has thus been excluded."
Are you that ignorant? You just proved my point. You can NEVER prove what 2+2 equals in this equation. You have never proved that god exist nor have you proved that atheism is a belief (though I am not sure what that would gain you.)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 amThey serve better food and are more prone to lending one money.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:51 am
another lie you can't substantiate; another cheap slur; another display of your clear bigotry an fear of the security of non-believers. you grow ever more pathetic and desperate, as you flail to keep from drowning in your own lies and bullshit. it's too late for you, you're all done, a laughingstock.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 amWithout the theists, you A-theists wouldn’t even exist. -Bart
Define existence.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 amGoodnight all, and thank you, Websters, for deflating another windbag.
Too bad Bart.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 amWithout the theists, you A-theists wouldn’t even exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:53 am
And without begging . pleading , lots of alcohol and in-breeding , nor would you ........
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:56 am"Oh, I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware there were billions of people and thousands of years of documentation, testimonias and supportive archeological evidence to support the idea of “pink unicornsâ€."
Billions of people and thousands of years of documentation? AND supportive archeological evidence??? Is that supposed to be funny? Really. Serious question. Are you a comedian?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 amWithout the theists, you A-theists wouldn’t even exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:53 am
I see you're still striving to reach absolute bottom. I would never have imagined that you had posession of that much personal stupidity.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 amWithout the theists, you A-theists wouldn’t even exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:53 am
No, without theists, we humans would not be so hindered and would be able to get on with the betterment of mankind, our environment as we learn more about our world and the universe. Reality.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 amBut given the two, I’ll take the relgionists. They serve better food and are more prone to lending one money.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:51 am
The irony of that statement is no doubt utterly lost on you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am"Without the theists, you A-theists wouldn’t even exist. -Bart
Define existence."
I have to agree with Gump, here, this time. If it weren't for unicornists, A-unicornists wouldn't exist.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 amI’d love to learn your atheist math system sometime though.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:57 am
how? You're clearly incapable of learning anything, and yet you claim to know so much. what a great bullshitter you would be if you weren't so invested in your own faux superiority.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 amAnd Bart will go to bed tonight believing he has won this argument. Most everybody else will see this as a case of self-aggrandizement. Either way there's got to be a better way to make a living Bart. Unles you feel yourself deserving of the disdain of others. In which case you should get professional help.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 amWithout the theists, you A-theists wouldn’t even exist.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:53 am
Nonsense. The first homo sapiens were atheists. They had, literally, no concept whatsoever of deity. That took tens of thousands of years to culturally evolve. Atheism existed before theism, and atheism will exist long after every religion that exists on Earth right now has long since passed from human memory.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 amAnd that is the point above all, without theists there wouldn't be atheists. He hits on it without even knowing it. Without morons we wouldn't know what genious is. Without people that believe in the craziest crap imaginable we wouldn't know we are sane.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 am"I didn’t expect anyone as fanatical and warped as an atheist to be educated in these matters."
After the past few hours I wouldn't expect you to use your mind at all. You have not disappointed me.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 amBart, mankind came before these religions you name. Thought came before these religions.
You are putting religion before man.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:03 amAre you that ignorant? You just proved my point. You can NEVER prove what 2+2 equals in this equation.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 2:55 am
:\
Really?
Perhaps you should put aside the calculator for a while, and switch to something more suited to your mathematical skills.
Like an abacus.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:56 am
Gee Bart is there a point big enough so that even you can't miss it. What's your code Bart, always wrong but never in doubt?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 am"Try doing a google search on the number of Christians in the world.
Then do a google search on the number of Muslims.
Then Jews.
Then all the other relgions.
Then, buy a really big abacus, and come back when you have a sum total."
Uhh, ok, lets rewind the clock a bit, before the Reformation and a whole lot of dead pagans. Ever heard of lions, Christ-boy?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 amI didn’t expect anyone as fanatical and warped as an atheist to be educated in these matters.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:00 am
Hmmm , how many atheists have killed others in the name of a being who claims it isn't correct to kill another ?
How many atheists have killed others because others didn't readily accept/adopt becoming atheists themselves ?
Your own "education" in these matters resembles a pre-K drop-out.....
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 amBillions of people and thousands of years of documentation? AND supportive archeological evidence??? Is that supposed to be funny? Really. Serious question. Are you a comedian?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 2:57 am
Apparently, billions of people and thousands of years worth of contradictory beliefs that exhibit enormous amounts of cultural, confirmation and other forms of bias, is proof that beyond all of those contradictions, SOME of those contradictory assertions with zero evidence MUST be right, because they cannot be proven WRONG.
Also, apparently, a 100% LACK of ANY contemporary writings about an individual is sufficient evidence that said individual exists (the earliest documentation of Yeshua/Jesus is 20+ years after his DEATH, and that is supposed to be trustworthy?), according to a great many theists.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 amTry doing a google search on the number of Christians in the world.
Then do a google search on the number of Muslims.
Then Jews.
Then all the other relgions.
Then, buy a really big abacus, and come back when you have a sum total.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:00 am
That merely explains why ignorance, intolerance and hatred are still so absolutely prevalent among humans; most humans are not evolved enough to have rejected the religious indoctrination society depends on for control of the populace. You're awfully ignorant of history if you haven't learned that yet. and yet, with the billions and billions served, not a trace, nor an iota of proof. No evidence, no scientific backing. None. Zero. I accept what the facts and science has shown me, and you need me to prove the nonexistence of the clearly non-existent? You're either crazy or stupid, and I'm neither. As always, you lose.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 amIt certainly is a rich and fascinating belief system you atheists have created there.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 2:58 am
Science is fascinating. There is a lot of mystery in the real world by itself, not even glancing at the rest of the universe, from there it becomes astounding.
The evidence so far shows reality is very fascinating indeed.
Even without the proof of the existence of a sky god that supposedly originated with primitive nomadic tribes one day started off making blood sacrifices to it. =)
.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 am"Also, apparently, a 100% LACK of ANY contemporary writings about an individual is sufficient evidence that said individual exists (the earliest documentation of Yeshua/Jesus is 20+ years after his DEATH, and that is supposed to be trustworthy?), according to a great many theists."
I am still waiting for one shred of archaelogical evidence of god. Somehow, I don't think Barty will be forthcoming with that answer.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 amTry doing a google search on the number of Christians in the world.
Then do a google search on the number of Muslims.
Then Jews.
Then all the other relgions.
Then, buy a really big abacus, and come back when you have a sum total.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:00 am
But whatever you do, you absolutely must NOT look to see the trending of decline or increase of belief in deity in advanced civilizations. You absolutely must NOT look at all of the evidence pointing to consistent decrease in theistic belief as a society's knowledge increase, and the consistent increase in theistic belief as a society's knowledge decreases. Seriously. Stop looking at that stuff.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 am"What “facts†has science shown you that proves a god or gods does not exist?"
Oh, you actually think it is our responsibility to prove the existence of god!!! That is precious. That is up to your theologists. See, buddy, there is no evidence of god...therefore, we don't believe in god. Get it?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 amIt's interesting to watch posters come here giving Bart the benefit of the doubt and how quickly they turn against him. If he was equipped with the brilliance he believess himself to have perhaps he could convince SOMEBODY to side with him. But alas he's all alone with his delusions.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 amWhat proof do you have that Thor, Zeus, Isis, and Coyote don't exist?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 am"A claim that god does not exist.
A claim you cannot prove."
Are you as stupid as you seem? You, by virtue of your belief in god, are making a claim that god exists. It is up to you to prove it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:16 amI accept what the facts and science has shown me,
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 2, 2008 @ 3:07 am
Really?
What “facts†has science shown you that proves a god or gods does not exist?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:09 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 amThat pregnancy doesn't occur with an "immaculate conception".....
And the fact is the atheists I have met in here, and elsewhere, invariably are a foul, ignorant lot of closed minded bigots, who attack like rabid wolfpacks whenever their little belief system is challenged.
They force their beliefs down peoples throats like the most fanatical evangelicals out there, and yet they have no more proof than the religionist of their claims.
The fact is, theres a LOT of us out here that think you’re BOTH nuts, and are sick of hearing what you think you know as facts to be shoved down our throats.
I don’t know if there is a god. I don’t know if there isn’t. I know theres billions of people who will tell me there is.
And theres a few million who tell will me there isn’t.
For those of us who admit we don’t know one way or the other, the two of you are like rabid loons, at each others throats, and trying to drag the rest of us to one side or the other.
You're a liar, a sociopathic liar, in fact. Nobody attacked you for questioning their belief system, you were attacked for insulting a group as "fanatics", you were attacked for equivocating non-believers with the faithful, and nobody has shoved anything down your throat except your own lies and misconceptions. Your cowardly fence-sitting is hardly a defense of your own belief system, which comes down to "I don't know anything, but everybody else is wrong", but nobody has tried to "drag' you either way, mainly because your such a hateful piece of shit that nobody wants you on their team. You're by far the most doctrinaire, narrow-minded fanatic anyone has ever encountered here; not even the most insane wingnut would continue a losing, ignorant argument for weeks on end, in the face of complete and absolute rejection and scorn. My 8-month-old grandaughter has more class and sense than you. At least her tantrums end, eventually. and all signs indicate that she will grow up. Can't be so sure about you.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 amYou keep quoting Spudge, Bartlebee. I have said similar things. Why are you quoting him and not me. Maybe you respect him more. That is fine. I am guessing it has more to do with the nuance. He would blast your ass for your retarded quote.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 amWhat proof do you have that Thor, Zeus, Isis, and Coyote don’t exist?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 3:14 am
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 amHis Bible study teacher .........
What “facts†has science shown you that proves a god or gods does not exist?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:09 am
And from what evidence do YOU have that there is a god that I should disprove the existence of?
You cannot prove a negative.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 amAgain, Bartlebee, where is the evidence. You can say that a couple billion morons say god is real (doesn't mean much when most people are idiots). Where are the thousands of years of documentations (I am talking verifyable) and what the F^ck are you talking about archaelogical proof??? Are you an ID fan?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 amLike most atheist fanatics, your brain can not get beyond the notion of demanding I prove god exists, or defend that belief.
I don’t need to, since I’m not making the claim.
YOU on the other hand, ARE making a claim.
A claim that god does not exist.
A claim you cannot prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:13 am
A claim atheists do not have to prove. They are not asserting anything. They are defending the negative against the assertion of a positive. I'm sorry you do not understand such a fundamental building block of logic and reason. The burden of proof always (seriously, ALWAYS!!!) rests upon the shoulders of those asserting the positive, never those asserting the negative.
Most logical, reasoned atheists assert that, since no religion in the history of mankind has brought forth proof of the existence of ANY deity, in tens of thousands of years, that assertion must be incorrect, and unfounded in reality. You know, reality? The actual shared existence we are all a part of? The theists have a vested interest in proving that deity exists, and had they EVER found ANY such evidence, they would show it to the entire world over and over again. Atheists have NO VESTED INTEREST in disproving a concept for which there is zero evidence, but they do have a vested interest in keeping theists' beliefs out of the laws and cultural pressures that actually influence their really-real, actually exists in reality, lives.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 am"Once again, for the perpetually braindead, I am not aware of a billions of people believing in them, nor of thousands of years of documentaton to support their existence, as well as supportive archeaological evidence."
That is really stupid. 99%+ of Greeks believed in Zeus, Aphrodite, Athena, Ares...The percentage isn't that great for old Yahweh.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 amExcuse me, never those defending the negative.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 amA claim that god does not exist.
A claim you cannot prove.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:13 am
of course I can. I have traveled the world, and never seen hide nor hair of god. I have gone to churches and temples, I have sat with priests and ministers and rabbis. I have looked in my closets, up in the sky, down into caves, behind the couch, under the refrigerator. no god. anywhere. proof enough for me; it's not proof enough for you, because you are afraid. there is doubt in your mind, and you don't want to commit one way or another. Some people are like that because they are curious and open. You are like that because you're afraid, and are keeping your options open, just in case. Your way is the coward's way. My way needs only proof to me, since I'm not preaching or converting. I need not expend energy proving the obvious to such an ignorant, narrow-minded person as you. Why? Because, contrary to your incorrect assumptions, i'm not a Fanatic. That sobriquet is reserved for you, and you have earned it. And you insist of proving it, hour after hour.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 amWhat proof do you have that Thor, Zeus, Isis, and Coyote don’t exist?
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 3:14 am
Once again, for the perpetually braindead, I am not aware of a billions of people believing in them, nor of thousands of years of documentaton to support their existence, as well as supportive archeaological evidence.
But if you know of a billion people who beieve in Isis, then by all means lets get the demograph on the board.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:17 am
Hey brainless boy wonder
How long did the "known world" believe the earth to be the center of the universe and/or that the world was flat ?
How correct did they prove to be ?
You're trying to equate the popularity of a myth/belief into that somehow being the marker that should be used to determine its accuracy and/or existence ?
Are you retarded ?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 amYes, MCMetal, I do believe he is retarded which gives me a big old moral dillema. (sigh)
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 amSee how they just move the goal posts.
Now the atheists can make claims they don’t have to prove.
lol
Sorry Mr Atheist, but your belief system is as fanatical and deluded as any I’ve seen.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:24 am
That is not moving the goalpost. That is a fundamental concept of logic and reason. He who asserts a positive must prove it. He who defends the negative merely needs to prove that he who asserts the positive is unable to prove his assertion. That is one of the underlying principles of logical thought, and of reason.
It is the exact reason WHY I do not have to prove that faeries do NOT exist. Rather, those asserting that faeries exist must PROVE that faeries exist. Until someone proves that faeries exist, there is no LOGICAL REASON to believe that faeries exist.
It is simply astounding that you cannot grasp such an important concept that is one of the fundamental building blocks of reason and logic. Simply astounding.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 amI know, dilemma.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 amAtheist = Evolved thought / Religious = Primitive superstition
Comment by Buckie Boy — November 29, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
And then, I merely RESPONDED, with a reasonable measured proportionate response.
Atheist = Fanatical Belief System/ Religious = Same Thing
Comment by BARTLEBEE — November 29, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:23 am
there is no attack of any sort there, only a reasonable opinion. your response is unprincipled, unproveable, and a rank attack. You deserve every bit of the scorn and opprobrium heaped on you if that is indeed where this started. you chose to respond to a reasoned, widely accepted opinion with an attack of character assassination, using the word fanatic, which is nothing more than a cheap smear. You were instantly seen as a bigot, and you have paid the price for that ignorance and bias. I'm glad i joined in, your cheap attack needed a proper response, and you have been shown the error of your ways. What a loser you are, what a sad case.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 am"Oh give me a break. Those beliefs did not have the associated events, occurances, etc. They were pagan like practices and rituals that were not handed down, died out thousands of years ago and do not even APPROACH the numbers of Jews, Christians Muslims etc who’ve lived over the past 6000, and 2000 years, respectively."
What??? They did not have the associated events, occurances, etc.? At least they made f^cking sense!! Every storm was associated with them instead of every god-d^mn touchdown. By the way, what is the last 6000 years? Is that all of history? Please tell me you are a young earther.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 amIt is simply astounding that you cannot grasp such an important concept that is one of the fundamental building blocks of reason and logic. Simply astounding.
Comment by Moderation — January 2, 2008 @ 3:30 am
you must be new here. bartlebee ignores all facts and concepts that don't fit his preconceived notions. he is a bully, with all the weaknesses of classic bullies. His only goal is to have everybody declare him Supreme god Of TP for all time; otherwise, we will be subjected time and again to his moronic world-class ignorance and bigotry.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 amGiven the two, I’ll take them over you any day.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:33 am
of course you will. Anything to avoid thinking instead of knee-jerk reaction.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 amI am merely acknowledging its existence, and your inability to disprove it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:32 am
And I acknowledge the position of a person with such a tenuous grasp of reality that has to fall to insults and illogic as a defense of his position.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 am"I’m not defending the evidence, although the evidence you cannot disprove."
Of course you aren't. There isn't any evidence of your god and there never will be.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 amIn truth I’ve seldom met people of faith so ugly and ignorant in defending their precarious belief systems.
Given the two, I’ll take them over you any day.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:33 am
In truth, I've all too often met ignorant bigots whose only recourse when proven wrong is to lash out in a personal manner and avoid addressing the subject. bart is another in a long line of thoroughly useless flesh.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 amHey brainless boy wonder
How long did the “known world†believe the earth to be the center of the universe and/or that the world was flat ?
How correct did they prove to be ?
Comment by MCMetal — January 2, 2008 @ 3:26 am
Who cares dickwad?
I’m not defending the evidence, although the evidence you cannot disprove.
I am merely acknowledging its existence, and your inability to disprove it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:32 am
I already did disprove it , you clueless lump of shit.
Immaculate conception is a fairy tale , not "evidence" of any type .
Stories that are told that have partial truths in terms of factual events in them do not make them wholly viable ; they are merely there to make the stories seem acceptable.
They are not by me ; by who , who gives a shit ?
You're a pseudo-intellectual putz and a delusional skid mark.
Nothing more.........
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 am"You’re an idiot lefty."
There is the admission folks. Anybody who ever defended this a$$hole needs to apologize to every normal person...right now.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 amAnd atheism is a belief, and nothing you or the rest of you illiterate fantical lunatics is going to change that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:36 am
well, you are in the tiny minority with that belief, but it must be comfortable for such an ignorant clown as you. Even your dictionaries prove you wrong. what a joke you are.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 amYou cannot stand it when someone challenges your beliefs.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:39 am
pure projection.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 am"What you’re trying to do is get me to defend a religion or belief system, and I’m not going to do it pete."
Typical, you are pathetic. As soon as you feel pressure you accuse somebody of being somebody else. You disgust me, Barty.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 amYou cannot stand it when someone challenges your beliefs.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:39 am
You've never challenged an atheist's "beliefs", since facts are not beliefs. You have insulted people here, and they have chosen to not sit still for your smears and bigotry, but you certainly have not mounted any kind of a successful challenge. in fact, it's entirely possible that you've moved some people off your coward's fence and firmly into either a religious belief or a rejection of belief. That's how hateful and negative your crap is. Congratulations.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 amYou atheists have proved what an ignorant, deluded lot you are though.
In truth I’ve seldom met people of faith so ugly and ignorant in defending their precarious belief systems.
Given the two, I’ll take them over you any day.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:33 am
Yeah , because "God" knows that the religious believers of the earth sure need another delusionally arrogant fool with-in their aboriginal backwater midst ..............
The relative ease in which you attempt to dismiss others that are monumentally your intellectual superiors is kind of disturbing and pretty ludicrous on your part.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 am"You’ve disproven nothing, other than the evidence of any offical scholarly cirriculam in your upbringing."
You are right, you CANNOT disprove something that doesn't exist. You don't actually understand that though, do you? You think it is somehow proof that your god exists that nobody can disprove it, don't you?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 am"Yea, and my “Tiny Minority†includes the US SUPREME COURT, FOUR DICTIONARIES, THE HUFFINGTON POST, http://www.ATHEISTS.ORG and half a dozen other atheist websites."
LOL, those 4 dictionaries again. Why would anybody take you seriously when I, myself, gave you 3 contradictory definitions after only looking around for 5 minutes (I am sure I can find more).
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 amYou are right, you CANNOT disprove something that doesn’t exist.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 3:45 am
lol., listen to the poor atheist idiot, trying desperately to insert his claim as if it were already proven.
He hasn’t proven god does not exist, but he acts as if he has.
Because he is a fanatical lunatic who’s belief system overpowers his judgement.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:47 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
I think everybody with a functional brain can follow this one.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 amI already did disprove it , you clueless lump of shit.
Comment by MCMouth — January 2, 2008 @ 3:39 am
No, the clueless lump of shit was probably your father, once your mother rolled him in the ally where you inbred ass was concieved.
As for your “disproving itâ€, try not to speak.
You’ve disproven nothing, other than the evidence of any offical scholarly cirriculam in your upbringing.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:41 am
I'm sorry ; the "clueless lump of shit" I spoke of earlier was actually your identical twin brother , who was crapped out of the same cesspool you sadly emerged from.
BTW
Being told that I'm incorrect or whatever by the likes of you is about as meaningful as Chimpy criticizing someone else as a poor public speaker ; it really is quite pointless.
PS
It's spelled "C-U-R-R-I-C-U-L-U-M" , you feeble-minded mental furball .........
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 amI don't expect you to understand how profoundly you f^cked that last one up, Bartleby. I was talking about those with brains that work.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 amComment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 3:54 am
Seek help.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 ambart, until you show me god, you're an irrelevance, a bigot, and a fool, with nothing going for you but manic energy and fanaticism. I will live out my life in the comfortable knowledge that god is man's invention, and that a god or gods may be necessary for certain people to believe in, but that it is a construct. you, in the meantime, will live in fear and loathing, and will be frustrated forever by your inability to come to terms with your sick, twisted view of humanity. I will live with the knowledge and gratefulness that I'm not you, and with the secret pleasure that you are stuck with you: a cowardly, insulting, unpleasant, dishonest malcontent. You are, in fact, proof of the non-existence of god.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 am"His entire argument rests on disproving the dictionary."
Try again, Barty. I was actually one of the few that agreed that atheism was a belief. But you were so much of a dick that I found a ton of dictionary definitions that disagreed. But you are such a toad you won't even admit your mistake.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 amLefty, or he could be proof of a sadistic god with a bad sense of humor :)
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 amBut you are such a toad you won’t even admit your mistake.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 3:56 am
he will have to write his own dictionary: "An Idiot's Guide To Moving The Goalposts". as if a dictionary definition should ever say what something is not. Like: red (adj.): a color that is not green.
that's from bart's dickshunery.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 amWhy would you believe in a Yahweh and not a Zeus? I don't get it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 amLefty, or he could be proof of a sadistic god with a bad sense of humor :)
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 3:58 am
well, I'd be more inclined to buy into that than the blonde Jewish hippy thing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 amYou can talk about yourself in the 3rd person all you want Bartlebee. Just shows me you are going over the edge even further.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 amTo believe BARTLEBEE, all one has to do is believe the dictionary, and that different dictionaries have different ways of saying the SAME thing.
To believe the atheist fanatics, one has to believe that the dictionaries are all contradicting themselves, thus, making dictionaries ever more completely and utterly useless as gauges for diction and speech, and to resign them to the garbage can and the fiction shelf at the library.
To believe the atheist fanatics, one has to accept the atheists claims which they cannot prove, as facts.
One has to ignore the US SUPREME COURT offical records.
One has to ignore http://www.ATHEIST.org, the LARGEST atheist affiliation in the US.
One has to ignore Spudge and others who were not taking Bartlebee’s side, but agreed that atheism is a belief system.
One has to ignore HUFFINGTONPOSTS author, a world renowned professor and expert in evolution, who just penned an article outlining atheism as a belief and even stealth religion.
One has to ignore all that .
Or, one can accept the dictionary when it says, “ATHEISM IS A BELIEFâ€.
BARTLEBEE’s not inviting anyone to take his word for it.
Its just so damned amusing that he has to ask people to take the dictionary’s word for it.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 4:00 am
All of that is easier to reject than to accept, bart. you're a slave to convenient convention. You're a fanatic.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 am"well, I’d be more inclined to buy into that than the blonde Jewish hippy thing."
Never met a blonde Jew.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 amTo believe Bartlebee, one has to accept the word of millions of mental patients the world over, 5 establishment lawyers in black robes, a couple of TP posters, and some jerkoff on Huffpost.
Gee, I wonder why you can't sell it, bartie.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 amHe has not shown one single defintion that states “ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEFâ€.
Not ONE.
When he can produce one, then he can say that.
Until then he’s just lying, because he cannot win any other way.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 4:03 am
sorry, bart, I already trashed that childish tactic. and I posted several definitions that specifically avoided the belief and doctrine language. You're punch-drunk, or abysmally stupid. Which is it?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 ambart, why don't you show us a dictionary that says the definition of blue is "not yellow"? come on, you can do it. you make up weird shit all the time. give us another laugh at your expense.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 amNever met a blonde Jew.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 4:04 am
I was married to one.
she wasn't god.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 am"Like a Bushite, he talks of things as if they’ve been estabilished, or even existed, yet they have not, and do not."
Are you joking? You talk about god as if he has been established, or even exists, yet he has not, and does not. And nobody believes you are a liberal anyway. Your common sense seems...lacking.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:08 amprimitive man had no god or belief system for thousands of years, bart, so that is already established. modern man abandons god and belief systems as his knowledge of reality increases; that's also established. looks like you lose again, and again. will you ever win?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 am"Until then he’s just lying, because he cannot win any other way."
Win what? According to you fundies I am going to hell anyway. That's cool. I don't believe in that either.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 amsorry, bart, I already trashed that childish tactic. and I posted several definitions that specifically avoided the belief and doctrine language. You’re punch-drunk, or abysmally stupid. Which is it?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 2, 2008 @ 4:06 am
Yes............
and yes.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 am"I was married to one.
she wasn’t god.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 2, 2008 @ 4:08 am"
LOL, I am sorry for that.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 amNo matter how much they lie, the fact is any doctrine or belief, that makes a claim it cannot prove remains a belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 4:08 am
no matter how many times youj post this lie, it will never be truth. it will only drive home your own fanaticism. we have no need to prove the non-existence of something whose existence was never proven. any freshman logician understands that.
will you never win?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 amI have now provided 4, and they’ve provided me with a 5th, that says it is, including WEBSTERS.
Of course all thats just icing.
webster's defines atheism as the denial of the existence of god. why do you resort to tranparent falsehoods? are you so desperate?
will you never win?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 am"See?
They even admit they reject the dictionary."
Who are you talking to? Nobody here buys your sh!t.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 amI keep hearing Lindsay Buckingham's solo after I post "will you never win?".
bart, the butt of our jokes.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 amTheir belief.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 2, 2008 @ 4:15 am
I already proved it, bart. you haven't proven otherwise.
will you never win?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 amthe non-existence of god is an irrefutable fact, bart. otherwise, yo could refute it. I await your proof.
will you never win?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 am"When the atheists can prove their primary contention, that is that a god or gods do not exist, then they can authoritaritively claim that a god or gods do not exist."
When the Bartlebees can prove their primary contention, that is that a unicorn or unicorns do not exist, then they can authoriaritively claim that a unicorn or unicorns do not exist.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 amnobody's ever been able to refute the non-existence of god, bart. it's irrefutable.
will you never win?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 amcome on bart, i'm presenting it as irrefutable fact. all you have to do is refute it. show me.
"show me the way".
wow, Frampton.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 am"will you never win?"
Of course he won't. That old thing called fate is so against that poor, pathetic loser. :(
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 amthat's it? you're slinking off into the night? say your prayers, little bartie.
will you never wn?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 am"There.
The atheist admits it again."
Of course he admits it. He is not half-retarded like you. If you would like to prove the existence of god you are welcome to.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 amSo how many credits does this get you at Liberty Universtiy Bart?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 amI hope you know, nobody here will ever take you seriously again, Bartlebee. I almost feel sorry for you, considering you love being here.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 am"See?
The atheist bipolar. Two dimensional thinking occupies his reality.
Either you believe in god, or don’t believe in god. Thats their world.
Believe. Disbelieve.
:|
Don’t know doesn’t play a role in their world.
Like the Theists, if the A-theist doesn’t know something, he “pretends†he does."
Ohhhhhh, now you are agnostic again!!! Grow up.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 amDoes anybody believe Mr. Dictionary is agnostic?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 amDo you know why you are not going to be welcome at TP? It isn't whether you are Christian, agnostic, or atheist...it is your disingenous debating style. You demonize everybody that doesn't agree with everything you say. I agreed that atheism is a belief (in a way) but you weren't happy with that, you kept attacking people. I won't rest until you are gone.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 amBuh, bye, Bartlebee. You will miss us when you are gone.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 amOf course you did, Bartlebee. If you didn't you have nothing to worry about...right?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 amHow many regulars did you call idiots or morons, Bartlebee? Just asking.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 amActually, Bartlebee, I said not believing in a god is a belief, not a belief system.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 amYou say what you like, Bartlebee. If you believe you are innocent I guess you are ok. I am guessing you are not so innocent. Actually, I know you aren't. Wayne is always polite. You insulted him for no reason.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 amKeep it up. Bartlebee. You can keep telling yourself you are a victim!!! Despite the fact that people have given you dictionary definitions that said the opposite. You ignored them and kept being an a$$hole.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 amBartlebee, this is no longer about atheism. I would be willing to debate it with you if you did it fairly. But you didn't. This is about you debating tactics. I am going to try to get you banned because of them. You refuse to debate, you just keep BSing with no thought. Sorry.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 amIf you are lucky they won't even notice.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 am"Ever think that if you treat someone like a troll, they’re going to respond like one?"
You were acting like one before I got on. I even agreed with you and you still went both barrels instead of grabbing onto someone who was agreeing with you. You could have had a decent conversation but you refused.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 amSabyen91, Bart is looking to be called names. The dirtier the better. Get it?
So to make Bart go away start "praising" him.
Things like, "Wow Bart, your command of English is stunning."
Another good one would be, "Wow Bart, yours is truly a dizzying intellect."
Calling him names just increases his tempo...
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 am"You’re a little pu$$y who when he gets his a$$ handed to him in a debate, resorts to trying to ban the other guy.
You prove your own defeat."
I ate your lunch but you ignored it. That is the point. Your debating tactics were underhanded. TP may disagree with me.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 amThe entire discussion on this thread, and the 1600+ one the other day, about atheisim, religion and fanaticism has proven nothing of any value. The topic ceased to exist for the most part.
Do you all know how silly this really is?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 am"But I wouldn’t bet on me being banned anytime soon for standing up to ten seperate attacks, particularly when I didn’t say anything to anyone, but your pal Pete came in and started attacking me right out of the blue, lol."
I wasn't around for the first volley. But when I came on you were pretty ridiculous. And you ignored everybody that had a point. It is probably tough against 5+ people but you kept insisting on that dictionary thing after you had been given over 3 definitions that supported the opposite side.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 amLove how you use the definition of FAITH for BELIEF there Bart. Truly stunning juxtaposition of reality. Way to mix up the debate!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 amOh, and the insulting of regulars didn't help, either. Wayne is a good guy. And is one of the more mild people. Not sure what you were thinking.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 am"So …what was your point in posting 300 comments until 5 in the morning?
If you…er….â€agree†with me?, lol"
I don't agree with you. I agreed with you on one point (one you apparantly thought was big).