http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/28/getting-right-with-god-church-shooter-allegedly-targeted-knoxville-church-due-to-its-liberal-views/

mespo727272 1, July 29, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Patty C:

Unless we see more, you’ve won with the “under” bet since he only went for 7 hysterical replies. I am guessing more is to come, but I am willing to concede defeat. I also think we should nominate Gyges for the Euphemism Award after our hero’s diatribe against him for something he didn’t say and in response to a question to someone other than our comical friend. “Wordy”, how’s that for avoiding the real thing? Bravo Gyges! I haven’t wanted this to be competitive, but in my sport we do know victory is at hand when we get into the head of the opponent. We’re there and it’s vast, desolate, and scary. Yikes!

jonathanturley 1, July 30, 2008 at 8:01 am

BARTLEBEE:

I have removed three of your comments which included foul language directed at another person. This site is committed to civil discourse. I do not want to bar or censor anyone on a site that has free speech focus, but we need to maintain a minimal standard of civility in discourse. Also, I would appreciate it if you would try to combine some of your comments rather than have four or five one-line comments following in one after another. The problem is that there is a limit on the number of comments which appear on the opening page. We welcome continued exchanges and dialogues. However, having four comments in an uninterrupted line prevents other comments from being visible for the other readers on the home page comments column.

JT

BARTLEBEE 1, July 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm

No problem JT.

Since you permit bloggers like mespo and patty to attack new bloggers, unprovoked, and litteraly badger them until they finally retort with some uncivility of their own, and then penalize the blogger who dares respond to the non stop stalking attacks of your two favorite friends, I will do you one better.

I’ll leave your blog and never post in it again.

You guys spend your days damning the right for cronyism, yet clearly it is a dual standard when it comes to your own.

Notice not one word to mespo or patty, about their non stop attacks on me.

Not one word about how they follow me from thread to thread, insult me, harrass me, demonize me, and generally try and interfere with my comments to other bloggers.

Just let them piss me off enough to wear I might use some questionable language, and then walla. Here comes the teacher to chastize me for responding to these two GOONS you keep on hand to drive out anyone who won’t goosestep to the blog beat.

This isn’t a vehicle for free expression, nor does the free speech you so loudly proclaim on Countdown exist here.

What you have here, is an “ECHO CHAMBER”, where bully liberals like messpo and patty c, are permitted to drive out new bloggers by badgering them until they either leave, or react in a way that draws your rebuke.

Well, you can “say” you don’t like to censor all you want, but you just censored me, and without so much as an inkling of alluding to the bloggers, who harrassed me until I finaly let loose with some bad language, obviously to try and discourage them from talking to me.

I don’t talk that way, it should have been obvious to you that my intent was to make it unpleasent for them to keep harrassing me.

But apparently that was neither visible to you, or you just didn’t care. Either way, I won’t hang out in an ECHO CHAMBER, where left WINGNUTS like Patty and your pal messpo, are permitted to badger bloggers, but responses from those bloggers are censored and stifled.

I really thought you believed the stuff you say on Countdown, and who knows, maybe you do.

You just don’t practice it yourself.

So I will bid you good morning sir, and leave you to your ECHO CHAMBER, so you guys can “talk” about free speech.

Oh… and in case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight.

******************
When are you leaving-again? So we can mark our calendars in gleeful anticipation…

Analogy: you’re into bananas. I’m into oranges – - but I submit a poster of ROTTEN bananas, or a twisted banana trying to have sex with itself. Got it? That’s why it’s wrong.

And the “point” is, that you are still busy lecturing me, rather than taking responsibility for being caught lying, not once, but several times.

So that you find debating “uninteresting” is no suprise.

After all, when you cannot lie freely without having it get exposed, and when that is apparently all you’ve got to offer, I am sure the debate gets quickly uninteresting.

When you are ready to admit your lie about what I said, and then lying about what you said, I’ll be ready.

Until then, quit crying about making friends and playing nice.

Its a BLOG.

Not Romper Room.

How about putting debating aside and trying to relate as people without the need for winners and losers? I’m sure you would enjoy the process more and we all would enjoy your input.
Mike

And are you denying that once I pointed out that you had invented that position for me that you, for want of a better word, lied, about ever saying them? Are you denying that or not? Do I need to repost the words again?

Look Mike. I have nothing against you, or anyone. I merely expect people to debate openly and honestly. That I type faster than you, or my position holds more water than yours, is just how things apparently are. You are free to refute my position, if you can. If you cannot, you are expected to at least bow out gracefully, and not begin inventing straw arguments that I never made, so you can debate an easier position, nor are you expected to lie about that, when caught doing so.

Hell we all do it. Everyone creates straw arguments. I’ve done it. The other bloggers in here have done it. Hell everyone does it from time to time. Its human nature. Its how we debate. I don’t think I’ve ever seen JT do it, but most people do. Just repaint your opponents position in a better light, so that you can argue it more easily. The trick is not to do it in such a way as to change, reduce or add to your opponents position when doing so. Rephrasing or summarizing your opponents position is acceptable debate. Changing it, is not. You changed my position, and reduced it to stating all atheists represent the beliefs of O’hare and Dawkins, something I didn’t even come close to saying. When I caught you on it, you denied ever speaking those words, even though you had posted them just minutes earlier. The thing to do when caught making straw arguments, is to admit it when caught. Not further a straw argument by lying about ever making it. A straw argument is a deception, and poor way to debate, but it is not nearly as bad as outright lying.

I don’t think you’re a “liar” Mike, but I do think the ego problem you are trying to paint me with is really your own. After all, it was not I who got caught creating straw arguments and then lied about it even after seeing my own words reposted for my retraction. When Dan Rather was exposed for presenting questionable material, if he had just made a simple recant of the story, it would have ended there. News stations have to do it all the time. But what cost him his job, was his unwillingness to retract the story until the documents could be further verified. Now he wasn’t really lying there, he was just ill informed, but the point is, he could have made matters easy by simply saying “yes, you are correct, this document is in question”. When he didn’t, it cost him his job. And you could have ended the matter and moved forward in the debate with me, simply by admitting your mistake when you first made the O’Hare Dawkins claim.

You didn’t. Instead you chose to lie about ever saying it, then simply mock me and lecture me for days on end, without ever once admitting what you did. You didn’t even admit it in all your words above to me today.

As for my not reading peoples comments thoughtfully, that is another straw argument, as clearly, I put a lot of thought, and pay a lot of attention to other peoples comments. In fact, I obviously pay more attention to peoples comments than anyone in here, as most people that I’ve debated over the past few days, seem to forget not only what I said 5 minutes earlier, but what they themselves said 5 minutes earlier. Criticizing my “picking peoples comments apart” is clearly nothing more than sour grapes on your part, for not being capable or willing to pay as much attention to someones comments that permits you to drill down to specifics.

It’s called clarity. It is why we have excerpts from books, news reports, articles, quotes, statements, etc, in all forms of printed and verbal communication. The concept of an excerpt is the foundation to all debate and investigation. Like Patty, you too seem to have difficulties with someone examining your words that closely. I know it’s uncomfortable sometimes, to see what you said, but it’s the only way to be clear, and not cloud points and concepts, in a mish mash of flowery words, like I am doing now, trying to appease you.

When I debate, and I have been debating on the Internet now, for several years, I am specific. Clear, and to the point. I quote my opponent warmly and accurately, and usually use their own words, so as not to be tempted into creating straw arguments. Rephrasing someone’s position, is a good way to find yourself launching straw arguments, so its always a good idea, to quote the persons statement(s) that you are attempting to refute. I do it more to keep myself honest, than I do to “win”. Failing to do so is one reason why there are so many straw arguments launched in blogs. Its laziness. Bloggers are just too lazy to actually scroll up, and read and quote from the persons comments. They read it once, get mad, and begin summarizing, paraphrasing and invariably end up changing the persons position altogether.

Quotes, will keep one honest.
So accusing me, of wanting so badly to “win”, when it was you yourself who quickly turned to straw arguments, then lies denying ever saying words that anyone could see you had just said only minutes earlier, is pretty lame. Apparently it is you who are the one who is “so” concerned with “winning” that you are willing to throw out honesty and accountability when your position is faltering and turn to hubristic lectures that really should not be offered until you own up to your own shortcomings with the truth.

In turn, I try to state my position, clearly, articulately as my GED education permits, and repeat it often, so there is no implied nor perceived ambiguity. People who like long winded posts like the one I’ve just written, usually have vague and often unsure positions, and rather than be pinned down on those positions they seek to obfuscate and detract by burying their position in a barrage of words and paragraphs so that summary is difficult. Its a technique you’ll see from many debaters in here, who I have already encountered.

That is why I am specific. That is why I am clear. That is why I quote people directly and always restate my position so that there is no question as to what I, or the other party said or is saying. I do not always seek to “win”. I seek to be clear. And I like facts, not peoples “opinions” or ambiguous rhetoric, particularly when authoritative references like our English Dictionary, do not support them.

Which is why whenever I encounter a debate with atheists, I always make it clear up front, that atheism is a belief system. If I don’t, most atheists I’ve encountered in these blogs will try to obfuscate the true nature of their doctrines and beliefs, into something more erudite and scientific than what it really is. And they do this in an attempt to elevate themselves above the Theists.

Unfortunately, most debates never get past that point. Except for a few more intellectual atheists I’ve encountered, most will never get past the point of whether or not atheism is a belief system, which of course, as logic, the dictionary, and all reference material we have on the subject not written by atheists or their apologists, says it is.

I would however love to get beyond that point with an atheist in one of these blogs one day, so as to really discuss the nature of things, and ideas, concepts, and such.But unfortunately, most atheists are still grappling with the idea that the fact system they thought they were embracing is little more than a belief system, like the Theists they seek to dismiss.

Science is a fact based system. Theism and Atheism, are not.

That doesn’t mean it’s not correct belief. It just means its belief. Whether or not Theism or Atheism contain facts, is a debate or discussion we never can get to because most atheists can never get past the notion that theirs is a belief system too. So, rather than discussing the topic they instead obfuscate, detract, insult, name call, and in your case, create straw arguments then be dishonest about doing so.

I merely stick to the point, stick to the facts, quote my opponents so as not to be lulled into returning a straw defense, and maybe toss in a little sarcasm aimed at illuminating the fallacy of a concept or ideal. That I play hardball is not in doubt when it comes to being clear, and being specific, but considering the names I’ve been called and considering my position is correct in that Atheism is a belief system, it seems benign by way of comparison. I think the problem here is some people are too sensitive to a little ribbing, too sensitive about their own belief system and the fact that it’s a belief system, and too proud to admit when they’ve been demonstrated to be wrong.

If this had been a debate with a republican over some partisan issue, and not one but all major dictionaries and encyclopedia’s supported your position and not the republicans, there is no doubt whatsoever that you would declare the matter closed and your republican opponent readily trounced.

So to attack me, lecture me, call me names, etc, when not one but all dictionaries quoted support my position, and not yours, that atheism is indeed a system of belief, and not a system of fact, is hypocritical and very nearsighted. An erudite blogger, when confronted with the facts, and close to a dozen dictionary definitions denouncing their claim, would simply concede the position and move on in the discussion. But here we have seen you, Patty, and others, continue to challenge me on this topic, or simply lecture me for being so committed to “winning” or mean spirited for sticking to my position. It thus seems ironic now, that in your second complaint you accuse me of being obsessive, when you and the others continue to “come back for more”. I show conclusive logic and you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce documentation from Encyclopedia’s and you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce Supreme Court cases with defintions, Atheist published materials, etc, you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce a dictionary defintion which defines atheism as a belief and you say “nuh uh” and come back for more. I produce four more dictionary definitions that support the logic you cannot seem to grasp, and you say nuh uh and come back for more. Then I produce half a dozen more dictionaries that all support the fact that atheism is a system of belief, and you say nuh uh and come back for more.

I am only responding to your challenges and lectures. That I apparently type faster than you “accomplished folk” is apparently some sort of anomaly, as surely someone as myself with such a rudimentary education in our public schools and maybe a year or so of community college under his belt, and the luck to be taught a little history and language by the Catholics, could possibly do anything better or quicker than this learned quorum of attorneys, doctors, scholars and the like.
I was blue collar for the bulk of my life. I am still only starched blue collar, and do not hold degrees in law, medicine, or even butterfly catching like you fine people. I am what your crowd normally refers to as “street people”, although I do posses a modest dwelling, humble as it may be. I never graduated college, never even finished high school, opting for a GED. I do not teach, profess, prophecy or make pretense, I merely debate, and let the facts fall where they may. As one of my early childhood heroes, Popeye would say, “I am what I am and iz what I iz”. If my debating style offends you, then perhaps not engaging me in debate would provide you with a venue more to your comfort level. But if you should opt for the alternative, then be prepared to be quoted, warmly and accurately, (cut and paste even), have your statements or positions challenged, dissected and disproved, or, on that rare occasion when you find yourself at a superior altitude, nodded to in deference to your fine “win”. I enjoy debate. Real debate. Not the meaningless idle chatter I can find in any blog where a click of cyber-friends echoes each others sentiments with flattery and fawning, and shuns bloggers with opposing views who will not state their views once politely immediatly shutting up so as to permit them to be mocked and dismissed erroneously without contestation.

I was correct in my statement that atheism is a belief. I used an inflammatory word “offensive” which actually originated out of lazy brain more than trying to be inflammatory. I meant to say oppositional but didn’t think of the word in time to beat my fingers. But no one paid attention to the clarifications made post that word, which was only used once, and then explained, and instead painted me as a Theist, and a rube, for suggesting Atheism is a belief system, which of course one only has to look as far as the dictionary to know that, assuming their minds cannot formulate the logic required to know it without looking at the dictionary.

I have nothing against you Mike, and I enjoy debating you, however I require in my debate opponents very little, other than the willingness to admit when some form of deception, intentional or not, is illuminated, and not to obfuscate further by denying it, thus turning a simple straw man position, into an out right lie.

That being said, I do not think you are a liar, but I do think your ego, the one you accused me of having, is keeping you from admitting you got caught inventing a straw man and were too embarrassed for whatever reason to admit it, and thus ended up lying about it. It also has kept you lecturing me as you did once more, instead of simply owning up to it so we can move on.

When you can own up to creating that straw argument and the subsequent kinard, then we can happily move past that if you like. After this many days, it won’t be worth very much, but it will put the matter to rest.

Most of the people posting here are thoughtful and accomplished, including I would think yourself. We spend time here to discuss interesting issues and to exchange ideas. I’m a relative newbie here, though not to other message boards. I enjoy the forum JT has set up and I actually spend far more time reading all the threads, than I do posting. While you have many interesting ideas to share, some with which I agree, your obsession with “winning” is an annoyance and a distraction. Now you can respond by calling me a liar again.

I spelled out my position plainly and for all to see.

The dictionary was merely what I turned to once logic and literacy failed you.

What’s surprising is your willingness to follow the method of the Theists, and begin arguing with the Dictionary, simply because it supports my position and yours. And as I said above, your arguments constitute little more than what is effectively a bunch of “nuh uhs” and “uh uh’s” and a collection of other peoples words you found on the internet that likewise enjoy criticizing the use of the dictionary.

The dictionary is not the last word on the subject. But the dictionary, supported by the other facts, is.

A-THEISM is a system of belief. A “Doctrine”.

And until A-THEISM can provide demonstrable or observable evidence of its primary tenet, that is that a god or gods do not exist, it will forever be relegated to the realm of beliefs.

Not because the dictionary says so.

But because the facts say so, and the dictionary supports them.

As I pointed out last night, I spelled out my position first, with plain logic, and reasoning.

I only turned to the dictionary when simple facts, and literacy, failed you and your friends.

My position does not rely on the dictionary, and you know it. What troubles you, is the dictionary SUPPORTS my position. As does the Encyclopedia, materials published by atheist groups, a US Supreme Court case records, etc. But more than anything, LOGIC, plain, simple, irrefutable logic, supports my position that A-THEISM is a belief system.

In order for A-THEISM to be anything more than a belief, it would first need to be able to prove its founding tenet that a god or gods do not exist. And it cannot. Oh atheists will proclaim they can, others proclaim “we don’t have to”, lol, which of course is the defense of a child.

But prove it, they cannot.

And since A-THEISM cannot prove that founding tenet, it is relegated to the realm of mere speculation and belief.

Just as THEISM is a “belief system”, because THEISTS also cannot prove their founding tenet that a god or gods exist.

If either belief system, THEISM or A-THEISM, could prove their founding tenet, then they would move from a belief system into the realm of scientific fact. But since neither can prove their founding tenet, then both are correctly identified by all reference materials other than their own, as systems of “belief”.

That the dictionaries and Encyclopedia’s disagree with you and support my position is no doubt troubling to you. It must also be uncomfortable for you, to be forced to argue against the array of English dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc, to try and shore up your untenable positions. After all, if any of you attend or attended a college or university, then you know the dictionary is considered authoritative source in debate when the meaning of a word is challenged.

And if any of you have ever practiced law, or been employed in some position that put you in a courtroom on a regular basis, then you know that the Courts of the United States, in all states, districts and provinces, will use the English dictionary as the authoritative source when the meaning of a word in English, is in question. And I do mean all courts, as in the Supreme Court of the United States, which has used the dictionary repeatedly in determining the meanings of words. How frequently you ask?

Well, according to the April, 1994 issue of the Harvard Law Review, the US Supreme Court has used the dictionary as an authoritarian reference for the meanings of words in official cases more than 600 times. And that was in 1994, 14 years ago.

Here, let me say that again.

The US SUPREME COURT has used the DICTIONARY more than SIX HUNDRED TIMES in actual cases to identify the meanings of words.

In fact, according to the same 1994 issue of the Harvard Law Review, the SCOTUS has used the dictionary to define the meaning of words as simple as the word “NO”, to determine if “NO” could be considered a “statement”. The dictionary said yes. So did the court.

So given this is a legal blog, full of what’s supposed to be people familiar with legal matters, as you certainly comment on them enough, one would think you would be aware of the fact that the English dictionary is the go to source for the meanings of English words when their meaning has been challenged throughout our system of justice.

Regardless of attempts by A-THEISTS to argue otherwise because they have “an axe to grind”.

If Colleges, Universities, popular scholastic games like Scrabble, Jeopardy, our court system, and the US Supreme Court all rely on the English dictionary for definitions of English words, then your mocking me for providing you with not one, but nearly a dozen different dictionary definitions from the most prominent dictionaries in our language including not one, but 3 versions of Webster’s, Cambridge, Password Learners, American Heritage, Random House, Princeton’s Wordnet, Collins, and the Kernerman Multi-lingual Dictionary, and even the Oxford English dictionary definition offered by Patty herself that clearly stated A-THEISM was doctrine, not to mention not one but two major encyclopedia’s including Britannica and Columbia, to demonstrate that my definition of A-THEISM is accurate , then your mocking me for doing so is less than erudite.

It shows desperation on your part, and an inability to come to terms with facts as they are presented to you, no doubt egged on by your loyalty to your belief system.

No one said that the dictionary was the “ONLY” source of the definition of the word. Purpose and meaning is demonstrated by the pronouncements of ATHEISM itself, as shown above, the origin of the word along with the first use of the word to define an ATHEIST,(Diagoras), and the declarations of Atheist groups to the Supreme Court, as well as the simple logic that in lieu of demonstrable or observable evidence it must by scientific standard rise no higher than a belief.

Thus mocking me for using the dictionary to support these facts, or worse, pretending as if the dictionary was my only or even primary source, is laughable. And sadly it also demonstrates how a “Belief System” can muddy the thinking of its followers with doctrine and dogma causing them to ignore or dismiss real evidence in favor of a preconceived system of beliefs.

I am however, sorry that the dictionary does not support your positions.

But reason, logic, and the other facts I have presented here, coupled with not one, but a dozen dictionary definitions all stating the same thing, all supporting my position coupled with the fact that in our legal system the dictionary is the source for definitions of words in the English language when the definition is being challenged, as demonstrated by not only our courts on the district and circuit level, but by the highest court in our land, the SCOTUS, all using the English dictionary to define English words in legal cases, makes it clear that A-THEISM is indeed a belief system, as the dictionary defines it.

Not because the Dictionary says so, as your Straw Army tried to assert, but because it cannot prove its founding tenet that there is no god or gods, and in the absence of demonstrable, observable or measurable evidence, your primary tenet is ultimately relegated to a belief. The dictionary merely concurs with that conclusion.

So we see why A-THEISM is “belief system”. NOT because the dictionary says so, but because the cornerstone tenet of A-THEISM has not been demonstrated to be fact. And since A-THEISM cannot prove its founding tenet, it is by definition a belief based system and not a fact based system. Case closed.

When A-THEISM can prove its founding tenet, it will move into the realm of fact based systems. But for now, it is relegated to the realm of beliefs, because it is by definition, and demonstration, simply a belief.

And mocking someone for using dictionaries to support their definition of a word that’s being challenged is laughable and is the bastion of children, the illiterate and the dishonest. When your opponent is responding to numerous dictionary definitions that contradict his definitions with simple “nuh uhs”, they’ve already lost the debate.

Now the only task is to help them come to grips with that fact.

But first you must demonstrate one of the three, by owning up to being caught presenting straw arguments, and lies trying to cover them up.

Until then your empty rhetoric and lectures that address or provide no supporting facts, is just more of your untenable “opinions” trying to cover up your shame at being caught lying.

Focus is what you need Michael. Focus on facts, and not your empty hubris which provides no facts, and ignores your own dishonesty.

And as I said, I am happy to help you focus.

Here is the first lie of yours where you claimed I said something I never said, that needs to be admitted to, and apologized for.

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

Once you demonstrate the wisdom, patience and knowledge to apologize for lying about my position, then you can admit and apologize, for lying about ever saying the above, which you did here;

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

Until you can find the wisdom, patience and knowledge capable of admitting to being caught lyng, then your lectures about wisdom, patience and knowledge fall flat, and only add to your overall lack of credibility.

Hope this helps.

Instead of responding with hubris and lectures, you need to admit your deception that has been reposted now for you several times.

And since you choose to respond with hubris, lectures and omit any responsibilty for having been caught lying, the only course of action is to once more present you with your own words, side by side, so you may once more have the opportunity to admit your attempts at deception, and your perpetuation of that deception, prior to moving forward.

Here is your first like Michael, which you presented in the form of a Straw Argument.

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

Then, when I pointed out to you that I had never spoken those words, which I had not, you became embarrassed at being caught presenting a strawman, and responded, by lying about ever having spoken the above words by claiming just minutes later;

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

So we see Michael, not only did you invent a straw argument to try and shore up your untenable position, but then you attempted further deception, by lying about ever saying the words you had spoken only moments earlier.

Thus we see, that it is not I who struggles with “patience” Michael. I am quite patient as you can see by my willingess to respond to the hubris, deception, insults and lies you and your friends here continue to present.

It is you however, who lacks “patience”, which causes you to resort to haughty lectures without substance or facts attached to them, deception, and when caught in the act, out and out lying.

But no worry. My patience is sufficient for the two of us, and I will make extra efforts to ensure that you have ample opportunity to eventually admit your original straw argument, and your lies, and persistent attempts to cover them up.

In fact, it will be my pleasure.

Like you and Michael Spindell (He’s not a liar in any way, by the way),

Well, I don’t know about all that, but lie he did.

In print.

And your vague unsupported opinion won’t conceal that fact.

In fact, he is still effectively lying, by denying it. And your denying it constitutes your lying too, as I have posted, and reposted his outright lie for all to see, including you.

First, I posted his “Strawman” where he claims I insisted that “ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.

Micheal said this;

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

Yet this is a lie, because I never said any such thing.

So there is “LIE NUMBER 1″.

Then, when I caught him on this lie (see the value of “excerpts Patty?”), he proceeded to lie about his lie, denying he ever said those words.

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

But of course, showing the two claims, side by side, rules out any room for wiggle.

Clarity in this case, wins again.

The lie, is there in black in white.

First, he invents a strawman, then denies ever saying the exact words that he just said.

In PRINT.

So we see, Michael did lie, and not once, but twice in print.

Which explains why you and your tag team partner, Patty, dislike so much having anyone examine too closely your statements.

Because it’s hard to conceal Straw Arguments and lies, when they do.

Like you and Michael Spindell (He’s not a liar in any way, by the way), I am tiring of Cro-Bartles repeated references to the dictionary for his foundational argument.

Yes, of that I am certain. You are tired of dictionary defintions, that do not agree with your A-THEIST Beliefs.

I am confident it bothers you no end.

The dictionary, is merely a reference material that I, and other bloggers turn to, when dealing with children or the illiterate.

Much like games, like “scrabble” do, or the award winning scholastic television show, “Jeopardy”. Just like Judges do in court, turning to both legal and English dictionary’s when the meaning of a word is challenged.

In fact, it’s what all “literate” people, and adults do, when the generally accepted meaning of a word is challenged. And since everyone except SOME “A-THEISTS”, understand A-THEISM is a “BELIEF SYSTEM”, and you and Patty here, (Your friend Josh crapped out on you, admitting last night repeatedly that A-THEISM is of course merely a belief system), understand that the word means a Belief that God or gods do not exist, turning to the source for English literacy, was of course the natural course of action that any literate person would take.

Of course, if we are talking “tired of”, I must admit to growing somewhat weary, of you, Mike, and your friend Patty here, inventing Strawmen (polite word for a lie) and attributing them to me, as you are here.

You are implying that the foundation of my argument, is the dictionary, which it is not.

I have produced other reference material, including the Encylopedia, A-THEIST publications from the largest A-THEIST group in the US, and even a record from an well known United States Supreme Court case, brought by a large A-THEIST organization against the US Public School System.

And I also provided explicit defintions of my own, along with my reasoning, logic, and plain simple common sense.

So implying that the dictionary, is the “foundation” of my argument, is another soldier from your Straw Army. Because the dictionary, is what I turned to, when basic literacy did not work.

It’s as simple as that.

Well, perhaps you are as simple as that. I don’t know. But since you have done nothing in this thread but insult, harang, try to disrupt, imply lies about me, call me names, like “ape”, and generally disrespect me, I find it incredibly simple minded that you would presume to demand anything even remotely resembling respect from me, on anything.

However, that being said, if your comments are as short and singular as the one you just posted, I’ll be glad to.

If however, they are the vain, random, multi-page babblings, containing a myriad of positions, supposition, and doctrine and positions from other peoples websites, then I will quote excerpts, as would any other of the several hundred million bloggers currently on the internet.

Or any author, reporters, news journalist, etc.

See, you may not have gotten this far in school yet, I don’t know, but your teachers should teach you a concept at one point, of an “Excerpt”.

An “Excerpt” is not quoting someone out of context or incompletely, but produces a complete thought or idea a writer, author, blogger, etc, has made in a public forum.

Here is the defintion, of the word “Excerpt”, in case it is as your “wishes” suggest, a new concept for you.

—

Main Entry: ex·cerpt
Pronunciation: \ek-ˈsərpt, eg-ˈzərpt, ˈek-ˌ, ˈeg-ˌ\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Latin excerptus, past participle of excerpere, from ex- + carpere to gather, pluck — more at harvest

Date: 15th century
1 : to select (a passage) for quoting : extract
2 : to take or publish extracts from (as a book)

—

Excerpts do not misrepresent the author, but instead “drill down” and illuminate singular concepts presented by the author, for closer examination by it’s intended audience.

For example, rather than repost my entire comment here, with all the bells and whistles, you could merely summarize this portion of the comment, by quoting me as thus;

your teachers should teach you a concept at one point, of an “Excerpt”.

See how easy that works?

This “excerpt” from my entire comment here, illuminated any casual readers as to the nature of the message I was trying to get across to you. Assuming the readers are literate, and not, illiterate, they will be familiar with the word, and not require the additional lengthy descriptions and reinforcements, or any erratta not related to that concept.

Assuming I wanted the readers to know that I had suggested you learn about excerpts, that one “excerpt” would be enough to bring the point across, to the person or persons of average intelligence.

Thus, excerpts, are perfectly normal methods of debate. In fact, they are the only way. For example, per your method, of quoting the “entire post”, would require a debater, in an oral debate to repeat anothers positions in there entirety each time they wish to reference it to address a specific item.

It would also require commenters on books, or topics, or critics of authors, to actually republish the entire book that they are quoting, when referencing it for either agreement or refutation of a fact in it.

And obviously, republishing the entire book, or even a chapter in the book, merely to address a point or issue in the book, would be absurd, as it would be impossible.

I am sure you are capable of seeing that, now that you have been introduced to the concept of an excerpt.

I will however, be happy to address any specific points, or facts you presented that you feel the omission of, reduced the clarity of the statement I am referencing. You mentioned earlier that you didn’t know what kind of debating I am engaging in, and that type of debating Patty, is called clarity.

Being focused, on specifics, and not debaters to conceal their points in murky rhetoric, erratta, sidetracks, and out and out babble.

Present your position with clarity, and there won’t be the need to so frequently drill it down for you, because the position will be the same each time, and consistent, and the facts will support it. Like the Dictionary. But I will still be using “excerpts” as does JT, Mike Spindell, and every other blogger in here, and blogs all across the world wide web.

A litle girls wishes, do not supersede the rules of competent debate, nor literacy.

I hope this helps.

Like you and Michael Spindell (He’s not a liar in any way, by the way), I am tiring of Cro-Bartles repeated references to the dictionary for his foundational argument. While I know that most learned people on the site understand the limitations inherent in any dictionary, I feel it necessary to quote from the Preface of the Oxford English Dictionary which I believe most people would consider the authority in matters of diction and etymology. The writers of that great work carefully explain in the 3rd edition:

“Another myth about the Dictionary, and about dictionaries in general, is that they provide a comprehensive analysis of each word treated. Again, this cannot be the case in a finite text. But more important, philosophically, is that any dictionary attempts to provide information in a manner which is accessible to the reader. In order to do this, it is customary to subdivide polysemous words by their meanings and by the grammatical and syntactic forms in which they are found. However, any extensive examination of the documentary evidence for a language soon uncovers examples of usage which straddle two or more of the stated meanings of a word, often idiosyncratically and in ways which it is not practical for the dictionary to illustrate. The reader should be aware of this incongruity, and should regard the Dictionary as a convenient guide to the history and meaning of the words of the English language, rather than as a comprehensive and exhaustive listing of every possible nuance.”

The above wording is categorized in the Preface under the heading “Distractions,” which I find an apt characterization of Cro-bartles’ “comments” and his impact on this blog.

Quote my post entirely, in its full context
and then dispute me, rationally, point by point,
or not at all.

It’s as simple as that.

Like your friend Mike, who got caught lying.

—-

Atheism

(AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002

—-

atheism

noun [U]
the belief that God does not exist

Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.

—-

Atheism
A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being

Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition

—-

atheism
noun
Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.

AllWords Dictionary.Com\Wiktionary.org

—-

atheism
A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being

Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
—-

Atheism

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition

—-

atheism ['ei?iiz?m] noun

the belief that there is no God

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006

—-

atheism

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

——

atheism

(´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07

—-

ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.

Encyclopedia Britannica

—-
a-the-ism

Pronunciation e thi ih zEm

Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.

Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth

—-

atheism

the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.

-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc

—-

atheism

n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]

the belief that there is no God.

Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008

—-

a•the•ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000

—-

atheism [aith-ee-iz-zum]
Noun

the belief that there is no God [Greek a- without + theos god]

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

—-

Go ahead.

Make my day.

Define ‘GOD’…!

- right here, right now, successfully, to everyones satisfaction, then, you may declare ‘Victory’

As I accurately predicted yesterday, the A-THEIST, when confronted with the facts, folds into a ball of insults, tirades, name calling, and denying proven fact.

I also predicted you would try and paint your opponent, as a THEIST, even though that opponent has said time and time again, that they are neither A-THEIST, or THEIST.

So like your friend, Mike Spindell, who has likewise demonstrated an amazing ability to invent lies and strawmen, you now present your STRAW ARGUMENT, asking someone who doesn’t beleive, to define god.

I don’t need to define god patty, for unlike you, I do not cling to childish belief systems, like THEISM, or A-THEISM.

You however, need to demonstrate your proof, that this god that the THEISTS claim exists, does not.

And in abscence of that proof, your A-THEISM is relegated to the realm of BELIEF SYSTEMS.

Just like the THEISTS.

Just like every DICTIONARY out there tells you.

Whether you’re literate enough to comprehend, or not.

No, not everyone – just you, ape.

I am more than capable of presenting and defending my arguments
- not to worry

Really?

Because your “argument” which you repeated over, claimed A-THEISM was NOT a doctrine
\belief system, which I have demonstrated that it is, by posting not one, but practically every dictionary defintion there is, including Cambridge, Password Learners, not one but THREE editions of Websters, American Heritage, Princetons Wordnet, Collins, and others. I even threw in Encylopedia Brittanica, and the Columbia Encylopedia.

They all say you are wrong.

In fact, your own definition, which you posted from the Oxford Dictionary, ALSO defined A-THEISM as a DOCTRINE, lol.

Your own dictionary proved you wrong.

And your response to being proven wrong, was to cry to the blog host to my comments, insulting me, and name calling, as you did once more above.

Clearly you are not capable of “defending your positions”.

But you certainly are capable, of defending mine.

In fact, you yourself produced

*********

No, not everyone – just you, ape.

I am more than capable of presenting and defending my arguments
- not to worry.

What I observe and so equally object to are your blatent, obsessive, personal, attention ‘seeking’ behaviors as evidenced by your scrupulously attracted focused selection of only the lesser, dubious, points presented rather than displaying any voluntary consideration of a broader, more worldly view, having been offered as wider, more open, ‘possibilities’…

I can only assume this is the reason you were invited OUT of
Seminary school.

You are positively not inspired. NOT ‘inspirational’.

Possibly positivley uninspirable – in your own mind.

That’s pretty sad.

Not only can you not ‘define’ God, I dare say you’ve had and continue to have difficulty getting your own head around the whole concept of ‘Faith’ – the meaning, or lack of it, in your own life.

At the risk of sounding flip, ‘I doubt it was the Lord callin’ you ‘that’ day, boy – sorry’…

——-

This is, essentially, a Constitutional Law blog.

Well, essentially, a Law blog, anyway.

Not a religious blog – ALTHOUGH, we do get off track an talk about religion … And a FAIR AMOUNT!!! Lately…

However, Bartlebee, aka Cromag’, please know, whatever you need to address personaly in your own life, you would likely be far better served in some variety of an Out-Patient Counseling setting and/or, frankly, a non-threatening, psychiatric, In-Patient Medical facility.

Unfortunately, that would mean NOT here.

The majority of people in the group, here, are not trained in psychology and are not sufficiently familiar with you or your issues to provide the support you so obviously need.

If you don’t believe me, try this:

Define ‘GOD’…!

- right here, right now, successfully, to everyones satisfaction, then, you may declare ‘Victory’!

OR, more likely,

Dial your local Crisis Line 1-800- ***- ****

AND if that doesn’t work, call 911…
… and ask for a ‘ Green Slip ‘ ie in VA, I think

Good Luck!

p.s. If I were you, at least for now, I would RUN away fast
- from religion!

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

And then, did you not say this, responding to that STRAWMAN, by lying, and denying you ever said it?

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

These are not hard questions Michael, and I doubt anyone other than us and maybe your friend patty is reading this.

But everytime I post these, and you ignore them, coming back with more insults and ridicule over my being here (which is laughable since you too are “here”), you are merely illuminating your own shame at being caught lying, then lying to deny your first lie.

Instead of silly kids games, how about simply admitting your lies to me, and then your insults trying to cover up your lies?

Then you could have that “last word” you apparently covet so dearly.

Instead it shows your immaturity, and dishonesty, in being unable to admit you lied, got caught lying, then lied some more to deny being caught.

Apparently because you’re not big enough to actually debate, and lose a debate, like a gentleman.

If you produce a fact, or position that defeats something I have purported, then you will find I will graciously admit defeat and move on.

You however, having been unable to produce a reasonable argument for your untenable position, resorted to fabricating a position for me, and then when caught on it, turned to lies.

When those lies were exposed, you turned to silly juvenile babbling, and insulting me with your friend patty, who likewise has little debating skills to offer.

If you would like the “last word” as you have thus implied, then by all means take it.

Simply admit to your lies, strawmen and juvenile attempts to distract from them, and I’ll be happy to permit you the dubious honor you seek, of “the last word”.

To “get the last word”?

I see.

Well, the last word is usually reserved for the person who has been proven correct.

But I will be happy to give you “the last word” if you like, as soon as you admit to your repeated lies.

And admit, to your now playing silly juvenile games and spouting babble, to try and conceal those lies.

Trapped by your lies, which you still have yet to own up too?

Or did you think that somehow your coming back in, and responding, did not constitute your presence here as well?

Once more, I’ll repost them, and continue to do so until we can help you to come to terms with them.

Here they are again.

First your strawman;

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

Then, your lie, denying your every saying the above;

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

Please admit, and apologize for lying about me, then lying about lying about me, prior to any more haughty lectures or name calling.

Thank you.

Nyah Nyah Nyah?

Told me what?

You’ve yet to admit to your lie, perhaps you are slipping into some sort of repressed infantle state, where you now merely want to babble, to conceal the fact you got caught in a lie?

Told you so! Again.

I’m sorry it bothers you that you lied, and got caught, but the fact is you did.

So instead of throwing a babies tantrum, how about growing up, and admitting that you lied, then got caught lying, and lied about that?

Here. In case you missed your lie.

First, you STRAWMAN, where you invented something I never said.

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

Then, your LIE, trying to deny your first lie;

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

Please own up to that before calling me any more names.

Told you so!

Of course no one takes such things seriously, as if someone was forced to post an entire comment when they are merely addressing one statement within the comment, that would help the person being “outed” with misinformation a way to conceal their deceit.

Patty is clearly off her meds, or something, and has other motives her than debate.

She first started by calling me names, and demanding I leave or something, then “TRIED” to debate, got her butt handed to her, and now is crying to the bloghost to censor anyone daring to show her silliness in all it’s glory.

And of course Michael Spindell, too little apparently to admit when he is caught lying, has returned with more insults and name calling, but not one shred of honesty to admit he got caught, LYING.

What a fascinating and rich belief system, you A-THEISTS have there.

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

MICHAEL LYING about his STRAWMAN:

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

Poor Michael. No room for “wiggle”.

Actually crommy, I drop by once and a while to post a short message. Your pathology is such, that you can’t resist responding and that keeps you somewhat contained on this thread. Busy here, keeps you from contaminating the other threads with your obsessive drivel.

You are so regular in the proliferation of your vituperation, that it gives me pause to wonder if you aren’t a person, but actually some sort
of sophisticated computer program. That speculation is meaningless though, because in any event you’ve become a bore.

You’re not worth the effort, because you are unable to learn from experience, or capable of any self insight.

Well apparently I’m worth something, as you keep coming back for more.

And if by “effort” you mean more Strawmen and LIES, then I assure I promise to “learn” something from your LYING.

Just as I did in your first lies, that you have yet to admit to, or apologize for.

So, allow me to help you into manhood, by showing you your LIES again. So you can recant them, as I know such an erudite and honest person as you profess to be, would want to do.

First, you created your STRAWMAN, claiming I purported that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins, something I never said, hence, a STRAWMAN you created.

Observe. Here is Micheal Spindell, “SPINNING” his Strawman.

where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

Then, when BUSTED on this STRAWMAN (polite word for LIE), you lied outright, denying you ever said the statement above!

Here is Micheal Spindell, DENYING he ever said the statement we have permanently recorded above.

I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

So we see, that Micheal Spindell, not only invented a STRAWMAN, but he LIED after being caught with the strawman, and has since denied ever lying about it.

Just like the republicans do.

Micheal Spindell, instead of personal attacks and insults that have nothing to do with the debate that you lost, what you need to do is admit that you;

A. CREATED A STRAW ARGUMENT

B. LIED ABOUT EVER SAYING WHAT YOU SAID

C. CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT NOT LYING

When you can mature enough to do the above, then we can further the debate if you like.

But not until you admit your LIES.

The LIES I have reposted again, for your peruse.

Patty is off on her own little tantrum about something or other, lableing insults, but providing no counter argument.

And she claims I am the one “not debating”.

No Patty, YOU are the one who is not “debating”, but instead resorting to personal attacks, when your untenable position crumbles in the face of the facts I have presented.

And of course we have Michael Spindell, caught producing straw arguments, then LYING about it, then spending the rest of his time lying about his lie, and launching personal insults.

So, all I can do is respond by resubmitting the facts.

They can sit with their personal insults, because apparently that’s all these two have got.

FACT: A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM.

FACT: A-THEISM, like THEISM, relies on an UNTENABLE position to sell it’s BELIEF SYSTEM

FACT: A-THEISTS, when confronted with fact, turn to personal insult and fabrication, as Patty and Michael have proven here in this debate.

I have determined that CroMagnon is the former ‘Bartlebee’
newly returned to, once again, commandeer and disrupt your Blog.

Your call, as always! However, I have a request.

Should he continues to post here, he is not permitted to pervert, or otherwise copy any portion of my writings except in their entirety and then only for purposes of discussion on the blog.

I insist his remarks be written underneath mine, clearly separated, with mine enclosed in quotations.

Whatever this nonsense is, it’s not called debating.

Atheism

(AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002

—-

atheism

noun [U]
the belief that God does not exist

Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.

—-

Atheism
A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being

Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition

—-

atheism
noun
Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.

AllWords Dictionary.Com\Wiktionary.org

—-

atheism
A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being

Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
—-

Atheism

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition

—-

atheism ['ei?iiz?m] noun

the belief that there is no God

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006

—-

atheism

noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

——

atheism

(´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07

—-

ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.

Encyclopedia Britannica

—-
a-the-ism

Pronunciation e thi ih zEm

Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.

Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth

—-

atheism

the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.

-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc

—-

atheism

n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]

the belief that there is no God.

Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008

—-

a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000

—-

atheism [aith-ee-iz-zum]
Noun

the belief that there is no God [Greek a- without + theos god]

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

That was supposed to read, “it began around the 5th Century”.

I’m in the next thread. Already posted for you.

We are talking about recorded history.

As for the Dictionary defintion, one of the ones I produced dates back to the 15th century, and as for you telling me about the origins of A-THEISM, something I’ve had to explain to you here, is laughable.

We know when A-THEISM began. It began around the 15th century. Whether or not some individual personally denied the existence of a god has nothing to do with A-THEISM.

A-THEISM is a DOCTRINE.

Let’s move to the very next thread.

The one on the “LIVING GODESSS”.

See you there.

It is not impossible or even implausible that people considered a god and subsequently decided there was no god. It may not be likely, but you must admit it could have happened.

I must admit no such thing.

It is entirely implausible, and impossible.

If no one had ever defined a god, then there would be no concept of a god, for the people to deny.

Duh…

It does not show us your fairy tale.

It shows us facts. Read about Diagoras. Read about Hinduism.

They will help you to understand the ridiculousness, of what you just tried to sell here tonite.