Enigma: ^ You see that you are the unashamed liar now.

So where is the evidence of this "legendary" lying with straight face on my part.

As I said before, on the substantive matter you are too thick and dense and too much of a dunce to be able to understand let alone present my argument. I will not even waste my time in that regard.

However, you could show me to be this "legendary liar" ------ by producing evidence.

You are a rather skillful liar, I must admit. Attempting to turn the tables by asking me for "evidence" will not do you any good. Your numerous lies about atheism being a religion on the back of a US court pronouncement are well-documented on this forum. Heck, even you just admitted to having more links to show where you have peddled these lies.

Again, your lie on this thread that you were only "using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion" is also still there above for everyone to see. This is a patent lie that I cannot even imagine that you'd try to defend it. An extreme oversimplification of your position at best, but a lie, still. All these lies while keeping a straight face and you still have the gumption to demand "evidence"? Are you having a laugh?

It's funny to observe the way you're desperate to wriggle your way out of this rather that owning up to your sins. I guess I'm simply expecting too much from a religionist. I can only shake my head.

Seriously, Enigma, when did you turn into this? You used to be one of the sanest Christians on this forum. Now you're just sitting comfortably on the other extreme.

Purist:

You are a rather skillful liar, I must admit. Attempting to turn the tables by asking me for "evidence" will not do you any good. Your numerous lies about atheism being a religion on the back of a US court pronouncement are well-documented on this forum. Heck, even you just admitted to having more links to show where you have peddled these lies.

Again, your lie on this thread that you were only "using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion" is also still there above for everyone to see. This is a patent lie that I cannot even imagine that you'd try to defend it. An extreme oversimplification of your position at best, but a lie, still. All these lies while keeping a straight face and you still have the gumption to demand "evidence"? Are you having a laugh?

It's funny to observe the way you're desperate to wriggle your way out of this rather that owning up to your sins. I guess I'm simply expecting too much from a religionist. I can only shake my head.

Ah, see!

You have yourself now conclusively proven yourself to be a LIAR

But then that was always the way of thickos; once they can not measure up on a substantive debate they resort to your kind of lies and desperate tactics.

Enigma: ^^^ Ah, see!

You have yourself now conclusively proven yourself to be a LIAR

But then that was always the way of thickos; once they can not measure up on a substantive debate they resort to your kind of lies and desperate tactics.

LOL. . . You seem to be getting some form of gratification from simply echoing my words in the opposite direction. I won't indulge you any further.

Feel free to have the last word.

Purist: Seriously, Enigma, when did you turn into this? You used to be one of the sanest Christians on this forum. Now you're just sitting comfortably on the other extreme.

I am the same as I have always been. You are suffering from a certain syndrome that a number of evangelical atheists and sciolists (not necessarily atheists) suffer from when they realise that Enigma is more than capable of puncturing their pomposity and showing up their limitations.

If I had never engaged you sciolists and evangelical atheists, you would have continued to hold me in "high esteem".

{{{That reminds me of the recent "catholic" debates and how a poster said he had had the same negative damascene perception of me lol}}}}

Purist:

LOL. . . You seem to be getting some form of gratification from simply echoing my words in the opposite direction. I won't indulge you any further.

Feel free to have the last word.

Much obliged: you are a lying and slanderous dunce and thicko.

Finally: I completely stand by my arguments on the thread you linked and the other related threads.

For posterity:

Purist:

Have you no shame, Enigma? A full grown man like you telling lies on a public forum just to score cheap points? Are you friggin' kidding me??

For anyone that is interested, here's the post Enigma is referring to: https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11175237

Your argument was NEVER an attempt to explain how atheism had ever been held at law to be a religion. That explanation itself would have been totally unnecessary as no one ever disputed that for a moment. Instead, your duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

In other words, you argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion, therefore, atheism IS a religion. Everyone, including I, pointed out to you that even though that was the case, you cannot use that solitary example to impose a universal definition of what atheism connotes, especially as it was a legal interpretation restricted to a particular jurisdiction.

You then ridiculously went ahead to recall my previous Bill Maher quote to attempt to save face. You implied that since I quoted an American earlier, I was being hypocritical to condemn you for quoting an American law. Unfortunately for you, you failed to recognize the sheer idiocy of this comparison. People quote others all the time if the words resonate with their convictions, and it wouldn't matter if they were American, Chinese or Namibian. You, on the other hand, attempted to impose a universal definition with a legal interpretation that was CLEARLY SPECIFIC and restricted to a certain jurisdiction.

Even Deep Sight who is a theist like yourself destroyed your idiotic arguments completely on that thread, so much that all you could muster at the end was a feeble "tell that to the birds".

If you're going to misrepresent people and be telling lies all over the place, you should at least have a good memory to boot.

===
Sorry for going off-topic guys.

^^^ For posterity: I stand completely by my arguments on the thread quoted above and related threads though the thicko above is trying to misrepresent those arguments.

Enigma: ^^^ For posterity: I stand completely by my arguments on the thread quoted above and related threads though the thicko above is trying to misrepresent those arguments.

Just to be clear. . .

For posterity: Enigma argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion under special circumstances, therefore, atheism in itself IS, in fact, a religion.

^^^ You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

Oh, and once again: I stand completely by my arguments on the concerned thread and related threads though this thicko calling himself "Purist" is trying to misrepresent those arguments.

Enigma: ^^^ You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

Your attempt to poison the well is well-noted. You can't fool anyone here.

Once again: Enigma argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion under special circumstances, therefore, atheism in itself IS, in fact, a religion.

This is not a misrepresentation. This was your argument all along. Denying this will only further confirm the 'liar' status already conferred on you.

^^^ And you have the same answer. You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

Enigma: ^^^ And you have the same answer. You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

For posterity:

Enigma's duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

(P.S. If this is a misrepresentation of his argument, why does he ALWAYS bring up this court case whenever he wants to "prove" that atheism is a religion? There, you have your answer. )

^^^ So you no longer have confidence that people going to the thread can see my argument --- and so you want to rehash here.

I will not indulge you. I am confident enough to leave intelligent people going to the thread to form their own conclusions.

For this thread, I give you this response below once more.

You still remain too thick to understand the argument; so I will not bother to answer your misrepresentations. You have proven yourself unworthy of that.

However, I will show how much of a nonentity you are intellectually: you have never read the cases in issue.

A person who is not a thicko would read them first before feeling competent to discuss them ----- but on that thread you mumus relied on third hand information from others who similarly had not even read the cases.

So, NO I cannot take you seriously on the substantive issues.

What of Evangelical theism?

Kay 17: What of Evangelical theism?

What about it?

Kay 17: What of Evangelical theism?

Reyginus: What about it?

Maybe Kay17 wants reassurance that it is a religion lol

Enigma: ^^^ So you no longer have confidence that people going to the thread can see my argument --- and so you want to rehash here.

Lmao. . . look at this unrepentant buffoon. Conveniently forgetting that I was the first person to draw attention to that thread by providing the link for everyone to see how foolish you are.

I remain super-confident that the intelligent people on this board will draw appropriate conclusions from that thread. Keep crying foul, you may win some sympathy eventually.

^^
If you are confident you won't be so keen to rehash here.

Maybe you want to learn, but I am never keen to have a thick mumu or dunce for a student.

Mumu who does not even know that the first step is to read the cases, who also does not know that it is unreliable to rely on persons who themslves had not read the cases.

Intellectual nonentity wanting me to be his teacher.

Seriously, you guys(Enigma and Purist) are going below the maturity line.
We're watching.

Enigma: ^^
If you are confident you won't be so keen to rehash here.

Maybe you want to learn, but I am never keen to have a thick mumu or dunce for a student.

Mumu who does not even know that the first step is to read the cases, who also does not know that it is unreliable to rely on persons who themslves had not read the cases.

Intellectual nonentity wanting me to be his teacher.

I'm gonna spare you the agony for now. I've played with you enough for today. Now I shall attend to things that actually matter.

Reyginus: Seriously, you guys(Enigma and Purist) are going below the maturity line.
We're watching.

My apologies.

Reyginus: Seriously, you guys(Enigma and Purist) are going below the maturity line.
We're watching.

Sometimes, a person has to do what he has to do,

Sometimes these things are necessary.

Purist:

I'm gonna spare you the agony for now. I've played with you enough for today. Now I shall attend to things that actually matter.

You remain a thicko, slanderer and intellectual nonentity.

And as I said before:

"Those who matter don't mind; those who mind don't matter."

Enigma:

You remain a thicko, slanderer and intellectual nonentity.

And as I said before:

"Those who matter don't mind; those who mind don't matter."

Jesus loves you too.

Enigma:

Sometimes, a person has to do what he has to do,

Sometimes these things are necessary.

I also think and know their are better ways to make people see the flaws you claim enshrined in their post. Don't you think so?

Reyginus: I also think and know their are better ways to make people see the flaws you claim enshrined in their post. Don't you think so?

Maybe there are ---- that is subject to if the "people" are reasonable, honest and intelligent people.

Enigma:

Maybe there are ---- that is subject to if the "people" are reasonable, honest and intelligent people.

Okay.;-)

Is evangelical theism a religion?

Kay 17: Is evangelical theism a religion?

Kay, I don't understand you. :-OWhat is theism to begin with?

Enigma talks about evangelical atheism as a religion, so I was curious of its opposite pole evangelical theism.