Oh boy, attacking gramatical errors and rhetoric, how wonderfully "autistic" of you!
I'm attacking a character flaw wherein you try to imitate what you think smart people sound like to give the impression that you're intelligent. I like how you're comma splicing the hell out of your sentences, misspelling the word
grammatical and then putting
autistic in quotes in one of the most desperate and nonsensical retorts I've ever read.
I'm saying I'd laugh because I find it silly. Being under the impression that I'm openly mocking someone isn't a suitable argument as it's incorrect.
Do you even know the definition of the word
mock?
Like really. If English is your first language and you have such a loose grasp of it, this makes a profound statement about how stupid you are.
Never the less, I separated the act from my argument, and made that extremely clear.
Nevertheless is one word, but I guess we should be past the fact that you aren't good with big words.
"Separating the act from [your] argument" makes no sense at all either as a phrase or even just as words in this context. You openly mock religious people in public and then you argue that religion is mathematically wrong, so in what sense are you separating your contempt of religion to your open mockery of it?
If someone's going to subject me to something as basic as saying grace, then they can handle something as basic as someone laughing at it.
That's not how society works you stupid turd. If someone asks you to pray with them then you either subject yourself to a harmless ritual out of respect or you don't and politely refuse. You don't present yourself as some jackass who openly mocks people for something as mundane as a table prayer.
Stop blowing things out of proportion to sway personal vendetta in your argument.
Kindly remove your richard from the English language because you are loving it without mercy and it wants you to stop.
Also, even if it were the case, your "fedora wearing" bias stuff is completely irrelevant. For someone who likes to nitpick a lot, you sure don't have your stuff together all too well. Bringing in your silly depiction of what you want to believe an atheist is != an argument.
I'm an atheist you moronic assbag, and you don't need to put "fedora wearing" in quotes. You're a contemptible psuedo-intellectual piece of horse stuff who in a perfect society wouldn't be allowed to reproduce solely for how god damn offensive your charade is to genuinely intelligent people.
I never stated it was. I never implied laughter was my argument. Having fun atop your high horse, you loving rodent?
For someone who can't even figure out how to format something as basic as an SMF post without breaking the damn thing completely, you have some nerve to be calling other people "rodents."
Mathematics is above theology.
On what hierarchy? They're two completely separate fields; mathematics being, well mathematics and theology being a derivative of sociology.
Good job being handicapped, I'll be rooting for you at the Special Olympics this year.
Someone lacking a variable to suggest it's real is, by definition, not real.
I'm going to ignore the fact that you forgeted this sentence up so bad that you're saying the person making the claim is themselves, unreal.
But beyond that, the sentence still makes no sense. A "variable to suggest it's real" makes no loving sense in any universe ever. Are you talking about
proof?
Proof is only 5 letters. It's a word we learn before we're 10. It says exactly what you're trying to say with no effort at all. But that's not good enough for you. You want to sound smart, so you try to find a clever way to say something mundane and you fail so utterly it's both cringe worthy and laughable.
Don your fedora my good man, you've earned it.
Mathematics is the only form of absolute proof the human mind is capable of knowing, so objecting against it is being under the impression your senses are far more capable, even though you're incapable of refuting what you consider to be beneath you.
If I suddenly want to believe my imaginary friend Bill is a deity, does he somehow become exempt from mathematical fact? Are you really that loving stupid?
That's not mathematics, that's psychology you loving dolt. There's nothing in mathematics that says that people don't have imaginary friends who they think are God.
See first reply. I get it, I make mistakes, but you were to make it out as coherent, as you corrected me.
I didn't "make it out as coherent," I made it out to be inane drivel from a psuedo-intellectual bullstuffter trying to flex nuts with an intellectual 2cm wang.
If you understand someone's point, you don't need to get on their case for how they presented it. Or, at least, when we're in this situation, there's no purpose in doing it. Well, you know, beyond boasting your oh so superior intellect.
I have no qualms about saying my intellect is superior to yours; as pretentious as the word intellect is. But no, people being able to understand your moronic points doesn't excuse you from the habit of trying to sound smart by using words you don't understand.
Newsflash idiot: if you don't understand the words you're using, and someone else does, you're going to look like a handicap. Don't assume other people aren't going to call you out on your nonsensical wording in an argument. Being a handicap has a way of destroying your credibility.
I'm playing devil's advocate when I'm not taking sides.
Exactly how is claiming that someone's argument is mathematically wrong not taking sides?
And devil's advocates do take sides, that's kind of what
advocate means you moron.
Laughing at something (funny how you say uncontrollably; making things up, again) is a presumed reaction.
Laughing at something is a presumed reaction? Damn right it's presumed in this context, but I doubt you know the definition I'm referring to.
You're trying to say that it's an understandable and common reaction, which isn't at all true because regular people will simply sit through silly rituals like that out of respect or simply say "no thank you."
When the argument against someone's personal preference of humor is being made by an individual who thinks it's appropriate to call someone an "autistic fedora wearing handicap" every other line, it's extremely difficult to take it seriously. I don't, because I get that it's a general insult.
There is nothing so humorous about prayer as to illicit a knee-jerk guffaw. It's a ritual we've all grown up seeing in our society and I can't think of a conceivable instance where being asked to pray would cause anything but discomfort in a reasonable secularist.
Again, see the first reply.
These aren't typos I'm correcting. I'm correcting blatant stupidity and exposing your charade to you. You aren't intelligent, you're below average. Stop lying to yourself.
A
I was implying how I enjoy that we're able to adapt and figure out how certain living organisms thrive. You're nitpicking again. I guess that's your only real argument, though.
Aww, you get on my ass about mocking and then you do it yourself?
You are worthy of being mocked. You aren't humble and stupid like Honey Boo Boo. You aren't well-intentioned and stupid like George Bush. You're bigoted and stupid. You're arrogant and stupid. You're the worst kind of stupid person. There is literally nothing about you that isn't grounds for mocking.
I've displayed mathematical argument externally.
See: image of distressed Asian man.
I was arguing against people who like to just nab on to anything they can to get a kick/assume superiority. Everyone assuming I'm hiding under anonymity because I get a kick out of certain religious preachings/think I'm a hypocrite for finding something humorous is outrageous, so I was calling them out on it. I didn't actually state an argument against religious practices here, I only defended the stance of my own beliefs and actions.
When you talk about how you openly mock religious people in public and how religion is mathematically fallacious you aren't exactly defending yourself at that point.
Err, I should rephrase. It's a law, but that doesn't mean it's not refutable. Someone stated that it was a flaw in my argument because it wasn't mathematically absolute, which is true, but it's something that cannot CURRENTLY be refuted. I was just covering my ass because I've actually gotten people stupid enough to suggest it wasn't.
No. You moron. No. No. No. No no no no no no no.
The Earth being round isn't a law, it's a fact. It can't be refuted because we can clearly see that the Earth is round. All the astronomy and astromathematics in existence require that the Earth be round for them to function. Every piece of evidence in the universe on the subject proves the Earth is round. It will never be refuted.
What the forget are you going on about? I never stated I retaliate to oppressive religious behaviors in that post, nor did I mension my laughter as a form of retaliation. I'm referencing other situations when I mention retaliation, and I stated people find MY attitude oppressive, not that I find religion oppressive. Holy stuff, stop pulling things from your ass and learn to ask for clarifications if you don't necessarily understand something. I never stated I doubt the earth is round. Funny how incapable you are of understanding certain segments of the argument, while you're able to rephrase others completely. Selective comprehension or stupidity, I can't really figure out which one suits your actions more.
I don't think you understand the definition of retaliate, nor do I think you understand how openly mocking somebody's religion can be taken as an act of aggression.
Openly mocking people for their beliefs is definitely oppression. There is no argument against that.
I was stating their assumption that I'm a hypocrite because I'm presenting an argument. Sorry, mistyped that out.
Yeah but you worded it like a handicap because you're hoping that if you use words and phrases you don't understand, nobody else will understand them either and you'll look smart.
The net result being of course, that you get called out for misusing and sodomizing the English language and you look like an idiot for it.
I never questioned whether the earth was round or not. Stop pulling stuff from your ass.
You specifically said that the Earth being round could be refuted, and that it's a theory. Calling something like that a theory requires doubt.
Not that I'd expect you to comprehend something like that.
This entire group is just "lololol you're autistic for not believing in my god omg stop being so stupid" so I think I'll just ignore it.
I'm an atheist. But I'm smarter than you.
Though I honestly kind of hope hell is real just so people like you can burn somewhere for eternity.
The argument I displayed above had nothing to do with me refuting religion, it was about explaining my situation against people who decided to attack me personally.
People attack you personally because you're a moron. There's no way you're going to refute that by reposting respected atheist work refuting religion.
