Atheism on Trial

[raw_thought]

[

There is no word for people who do not beleive in unicorns, if there was it would not be 'unicorn atheist'. You are dim.
You have a poor grasp of english. This is a philosophy site (not cite), and the use of words is important to philosophy. I am trying to make this as simple as possible for you.

Anyway, you obviously have no clue. It was obvious that I was tying together doubt about unicorns to doubts about God. I guess, I have to be less sophisticated when talking to you.

[raw_thought]

. This is a philosophy site (not cite), and the use of words is important to philosophy. I am trying to make this as simple as possible for you.

Ummm yep it is a philosophy site, not a cite!

[raw_thought]

Oh I get it. You think this is the climate change thread where you said I was ignorant for using "internet SITES".

[Lacewing]

Eccentrica Gallumbits, the triple-breasted whore from Eroticon Six, whose erogenous zones are purported to extend a full four miles beyond her body.

Oh my! Well, I guess there's no chance of uncomfortable emotional entanglements if the one she's doing is four miles away.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Oh I get it. You think this is the climate change thread where you said I was ignorant for using "internet SITES".

FFS. I said that googling was one thing. Understanding what you are presenting is another.

[raw_thought]

Yeah, you just said that. To cover yourself. Unfortunately, for you posts list the time they were made. Your point was not that I do not understand my links * it was that I was ignorant because I correctly used the word "sites".
* I dont understand a site (NASA, Royal Academy....) that explicitly says that AGW is real? Your insults show your desperation. Anyone can go to those
sites via a link I provided and see that when I said that that particular (NASA, American Meteorological Society...) says that AGW is real they in fact do.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yeah, you just said that. To cover yourself. Unfortunately, for you posts list the time they were made. Your point was not that I do not understand my links * it was that I was ignorant because I correctly used the word "sites".
* I dont understand a site (NASA, Royal Academy....) that explicitly says that AGW is real? Your insults show your desperation. Anyone can go to those
sites via a link I provided and see that when I said that that particular (NASA, American Meteorological Society...) says that AGW is real they in fact do.

What the Fuck do you not understand by the phrase "TO WHAT DEGREE". Now fuck off and keep your moronic remarks on GW on the proper thread.

[raw_thought]

Oh I get it. You think this is the climate change thread where you said I was ignorant for using "internet SITES".

FFS. I said that googling was one thing. Understanding what you are presenting is another.

UMM you were the one confused. You are referring to the global climate change thread!

[raw_thought]

. This is a philosophy site (not cite), and the use of words is important to philosophy. I am trying to make this as simple as possible for you.

Ummm yep it is a philosophy site, not a cite!

That "site" vs "cite" debate was from the climate change thread!!!

[raw_thought]

“NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???”
ME

“Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?”
Hobbes' Choice

“Umm it is sites not cites!”
ME
FFS. You claimed that you "cited". Any moron can Google. It takes a brain to understand what you are citing.
Hobbes' Choice
…………………
That was from the Climate Change thread. I quoted exactly! The embedded quotes are exactly where you put them in your post.
It is obvious that your idea that I was ignorant because I used “sites” incorrectly was silly. And also obvious, that you tried to cover your tracks by adding something ( It takes a brain to understand what you are citing)* that has NOTHING to do with your uninformed accusation.
In what way did I use the term “sites” incorrectly in the sentence, ““NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???”
I gave the internet sites from NASA etc that prove that they all agree that AGW is real.
* Agreed! Luckily, I do understand what the sites I cited said. They said that AGW is real. I even quoted them.

[raw_thought]

“NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???”
ME

“Do you know the difference between the word cite and site?”
Hobbes' Choice

“Umm it is sites not cites!”
ME
FFS. You claimed that you "cited". Any moron can Google. It takes a brain to understand what you are citing.
Hobbes' Choice
…………………
That was from the Climate Change thread. I quoted exactly! The embedded quotes are exactly where you put them in your post.
It is obvious that your idea that I was ignorant because I used “sites” incorrectly was silly. And also obvious, that you tried to cover your tracks by adding something ( It takes a brain to understand what you are citing)* that has NOTHING to do with your uninformed accusation.
In what way did I use the term “sites” incorrectly in the sentence, ““NASA, Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society, NOAA are not primary sites???”
I gave the internet sites from NASA etc that prove that they all agree that AGW is real.
* Agreed! Luckily, I do understand what the sites I cited said. They said that AGW is real. I even quoted them.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think You might want to attend to the thread. Please see header.

[PoeticUniverse]

True, for the topic is a Philosophy Now article and more recently of the identification of a straw man posed in it.

[raw_thought]

I think You might want to attend to the thread. Please see header.

I was responding to your "site" accusation (in this thread). I knew you purposely put it in the wrong thread (it should have been put into the climate change thread).because no one could scroll back and see that your accusation was silly.
I was simply calling you out.
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SHOULD ATTEND TO THE THREAD!
Please only put posts related to the thread in the thread!

[raw_thought]

Simply put, you tried to trick people by transferring our debate ( you think I should have said "internet cites" I stand by "internet sites") from the climate change thread to here. Then no one could scroll back and see how absurd your position was . Then you could say that the debate was about. something else. I hate manipulative liars. That is why I proved here what I already proved in the climate change thread.
Anyway, talking to a troll is pointless.