Nope.
I'm not trying to be "relevant to your claims." I'm specifically avoiding engaging with your so-called claims. I think they're a joke.
Yet, here you are doing the exact thing you're claiming me to do.
I called you "child-like" and "angry." If you think that's "name calling"(we're...
Well this post is proof you don't know what an ad hominem is.
And also that you're upset for some reason.
Wait a minute, are you describing my behavior as reprehensible? In response to me saying I disagree with you definition?
That's kinda funny.
I don't accept your definition of ad hominem. Using it calling you "pretty" would be an ad hominem.
I never argued that you're wrong. I also never argued that you are right.
Besides, why so angry all the time?
No. But i haven't argued your views, i only commented about your behavior. And your behavior is that of a petulant man child.
I didn't use this as a way to reinforce my argument: I didn't have any. I didn't use it to discredit your argument; I don't believe you have any.
But i do believe...
Except there is, including in this very thread. Period. The limit / problem is your understanding. You've been presented with some evidence, but for some reason your sensory apparatuses don't pick it up and/or you don't understand what is being presented. Almost like you don't understand what...
You just tell yourself that to make yourself feel warm and cozy. It basically ties in with your previous post.
But no, that's just your personal "hope/belief/wish" that would justify your faith. You could just call it Wisdom(tm) instead of "irrational beliefs."
So no, i don't think YOU...
Somebody really needs to give you a lollipop.
You're still acting like a sexually immature man child who's having a tantrum.
I think everyone knows. Your bitterness toward women is palpable.
A couple of problems with that claim:
1. Reports are anonymous.
2. You wouldn't know a report was made until it resulted in a moderation decision.
3. This kind of reads like you got offended and now you're here complaining about atheists for some reason.
You're inventing stuff about me whereas i'm just observing your actual behavior based on what you've written. I haven't told you what ideologies i follow. For all intents and purposes this is what happened:
I'm a random person to this debate: I'm making an observation of the written content of...
I believe you. Your claim is logically invalid though.
(I don't care about your point. Only the violation of logic.)
/E: I do technically also care about it not being an evidence-based claim. If it's neither, what have you got? A feeling based one?
Not really, just noting that you're essentially making an unsubstantiated claim: First, it's not been established that souls are in fact real. Second, their effect on anything as a result has also not been established. So two claims.
You're just giving yourself a free pass.
True, but authoritarianism only seems to work when the amount of trouble that comes from having rules and leaders, is less than the trouble caused by not having rules and leaders.
The problem is that "total anarchy" has as its opposite "total authoritarianism" rather than any sort of normal...
The idea i got from all your posts is that you're sad and angry that you don't get to control women, whom you also hate, so you would want everyone to do what you tell them, so you would no longer feel like having a tantrum.
There there. It'll be okay.
I don't think that has been established yet. So there is nothing to get until it has.
It's like me saying:
"You're still not getting it. The pink fedora determines a person's affinity or aversion to kindness."
And i'd be right in a sense: You're not getting it. Because there's nothing to get.
So you still think, after all these years of people explaining and your own admission to having tried to understand, that evolution means things morphing in front of your very eyes, in real time, to some different lifeform? It doesn't mean or imply that: What you have is a ridiculous sounding...