https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

advocate666:

Old boy, what you are smoking can only be found in the "lost" ark of covenant. It is what made them moses and davids massacre whole nations. Powerful stuff.

I don laff fall for ground LWTMB na spiritual skunk

Mr_Anony:
Lol, If I said I don't believe in the easter bunny for instance, I think it is a reasonable question for someone to ask me why I don't believe in the easter bunny.
Same goes for you; "Why don't you believe in God?" is a reasonable question.

I've not seen the video linked above, but I know the series, and it should do a much better job at elaborating. It's all about beliefs, evidence, burden of proof, etc

But if you ask me, simply, because there's no reason to.

If you claim there are, you have to convince me otherwise, you're the one claiming there's an easter bunny without any evidence. Asking me to 'believe'. To accept your claims on faith.

I don't have to defend my 'belief', or rather lack of one. I don't even have a 'belief'. Also, I'm not asking you to 'believe' anything, you are. If you ask me to defend my position it would be similar to your asking I disprove what has not even been proven yet. That's downright nonsense.

wiegraf:

I've not seen the video linked above, but I know the series, and it should do a much better job at elaborating. It's all about beliefs, evidence, burden of proof, etc

But if you ask me, simply, because there's no reason to.

If you claim there are, you have to convince me otherwise, you're the one claiming there's an easter bunny without any evidence. Asking me to 'believe'. To accept your claims on faith.

I don't have to defend my 'belief', or rather lack of one. I don't even have a 'belief'. Also, I'm not asking you to 'believe' anything, you are. If you ask me to defend my position it would be similar to your asking I disprove what has not even been proven yet. That's downright nonsense.

Lol, I guessed you would toe this line so let me put it to you like this: For you to legitimately ask me why I don't believe in the easter bunny, the assumption is that I know what the easter bunny is to start with. If I don't have any concept whatsoever about the easter bunny, then the statement "I don't believe in the easter bunny" is unnecessary.

The same applies: When you say that you don't believe that God exists, then first of all, you must needs be conversant with the concept of God and there would be certain characters of Him that you would find unbelievable hence your position on His existence. In order to find God unbelievable, there must be things that you believe to be absolutely true and since the concept of God contradicts with what you believe to be true, it will have to be false. If you don't know about God at all, then you really cannot have a position on Him and it makes no sense to argue since you are completely ignorant of God.

Basically, what I am saying is that You cannot argue the existence of God if you are totally ignorant of what you are talking about, the moment you declare that you don't believe in God, you have declared a position. You cannot have it both ways. Any attempt to explain that position is engaging in apologetics. You cannot hide behind "burden of proof" just because you don't like the word apologetics. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, don't be lazy my friend, those are actual academic debates you would want to look into if you really have a sincere interest in high quality debates instead of just looking for one more chance to mock christianity.

I have provided for you debates between arguably the best brains in christian and atheist apologetics.

best brains?you apparently aren't referring to the peeps in those videos

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I guessed you would toe this line so let me put it to you like this: For you to legitimately ask me why I don't believe in the easter bunny, the assumption is that I know what the easter bunny is to start with. If I don't have any concept whatsoever about the easter bunny, then the statement "I don't believe in the easter bunny" is unnecessary.

The same applies: When you say that you don't believe that God exists, then first of all, you must needs be conversant with the concept of God and there would be certain characters of Him that you would find unbelievable hence your position on His existence. In order to find God unbelievable, there must be things that you believe to be absolutely true and since the concept of God contradicts with what you believe to be true, it will have to be false. If you don't know about God at all, then you really cannot have a position on Him and it makes no sense to argue since you are completely ignorant of God.

Basically, what I am saying is that You cannot argue the existence of God if you are totally ignorant of what you are talking about, the moment you declare that you don't believe in God, you have declared a position. You cannot have it both ways. Any attempt to explain that position is engaging in apologetics. You cannot hide behind "burden of proof" just because you don't like the word apologetics. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Actually, you cannot ignore the "burden of proof". You're talking about defending positions

I say you have to be ignorant, where? Using the word 'believe' copiously. Anyways, again...


Why don't you believe in santa? Your answer is obviously there's no reason to. You now have to 'defend' your position? When? Santa was proven to exist? Did he show up on cnn? I suppose you're now a non-santa's apologetic if you note the FACT that there's no evidence to back up the claim.


You would have to prove santa existed before I would have something to 'defend'. Simple. Prove it first, then I'm on the defense. I'm not making any claims here, I'm stating facts. No beliefs. If you proved it and I claimed otherwise then I would have to defend, or backup, my
claims

Long story short, the one making the claim is the one who has to defend his position

Asides from the above, which is even valid only in situations where you use a liberal definition of the word "apologetics", note the term is used primarily with religions, particularly xtianity. Theism, let alone atheism, is not a religion. And most importantly, it is usually associated with doctrine. You've seen atheist doctrine, where?

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=apologetics&o=0&l=dir

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics


www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new&q=apologetics+definition&revid=891657883&sa=X&ei=JzqlUKjkC8qG4gSw4oDoCA&ved=0CBoQ1QIoAw

Delafruita: best brains?you apparently aren't referring to the peeps in those videos

Well, you are entitled to your opinion really

wiegraf:

Actually, you cannot ignore the "burden of proof". You're talking about defending positions

I say you have to be ignorant, where? Using the word 'believe' copiously. Anyways, again...


Why don't you believe in santa? Your answer is obviously there's no reason to. You now have to 'defend' your position? When? Santa was proven to exist? Did he show up on cnn? I suppose you're now a non-santa's apologetic if you note the FACT that there's no evidence to back up the claim.


You would have to prove santa existed before I would have something to 'defend'. Simple. Prove it first, then I'm on the defense. I'm not making any claims here, I'm stating facts. No beliefs. If you proved it and I claimed otherwise then I would have to defend, or backup, my
claims

Long story short, the one making the claim is the one who has to defend his position

Asides from the above, which is even valid only in situations where you use a liberal definition of the word "apologetics", note the term is used primarily with religions, particularly xtianity. Theism, let alone atheism, is not a religion. And most importantly, it is usually associated with doctrine. You've seen atheist doctrine, where?

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=apologetics&o=0&l=dir

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics


www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new&q=apologetics+definition&revid=891657883&sa=X&ei=JzqlUKjkC8qG4gSw4oDoCA&ved=0CBoQ1QIoAw

All well and good. I have seen that the definitions you chose for the word apologetics are geared at christians only. Well those are not a correct representatation of the meaning of the word. The word comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means to explain a position. whenever you debate, you are engaging in apologetics. However, I can understand your confusion because the word apologetics has been christianized like the words salvation, redemption, covenant etc but let us not dwell on words and meanings at this point let us move on to burden of proof and reasons for not believing.

I'll use your quote to show you what I mean.

Why don't you believe in santa? Your answer is obviously there's no reason to. You now have to 'defend' your position? When? Santa was proven to exist? Did he show up on cnn? I suppose you're now a non-santa's apologetic if you note the FACT that there's no evidence to back up the claim.

"there is no reason to" here is a non-answer.

Let us say I asked you why don't you believe in Santa and you said that there is no reason, and ask me for evidence

I reply that Santa brings the presents and I have seen him,

The moment you start arguing that the person that brings the presents is not Santa but daddy dressed in funny red clothes, you are providing and explaining your reason why you don't believe.

When I reply that daddy never says "Ho Ho Ho" in a weird voice. And you respond that daddy just makes his voice sound like that, you are defending your reason for not believing in santa ..... and so on and so forth.

By this time you are now fully engaged in Non-Santa apologetics as opposed to my Santa apologetics.

Hating the word apologetics doesn't change the fact that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are atheist apologists same as you, logicboy, cyrexx e.t.c.

Mr_Anony:
All well and good. I have seen that the definitions you chose for the word apologetics are geared at christians only. Well those are not a correct representatation of the meaning of the word. The word comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means to explain a position. whenever you debate, you are engaging in apologetics. However, I can understand your confusion because the word apologetics has been christianized like the words salvation, redemption, covenant etc but let us not dwell on words and meanings at this point let us move on to burden of proof and reasons for not believing.

I'll use your quote to show you what I mean.


"there is no reason to" here is a non-answer.

Let us say I asked you why don't you believe in Santa and you said that there is no reason, and ask me for evidence

I reply that Santa brings the presents and I have seen him,

The moment you start arguing that the person that brings the presents is not Santa but daddy dressed in funny red clothes, you are providing and explaining your reason why you don't believe.

When I reply that daddy never says "Ho Ho Ho" in a weird voice. And you respond that daddy just makes his voice sound like that, you are defending your reason for not believing in santa ..... and so on and so forth.

By this time you are now fully engaged in Non-Santa apologetics as opposed to my Santa apologetics.

Hating the word apologetics doesn't change the fact that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are atheist apologists same as you, logicboy, cyrexx e.t.c.

No, he's engaged in indulging you and showing you how childish you sound.

advocate666:

No, he's engaged in indulging you and showing you how childish you sound.

Please don't get offended when I say this but wiegraf for all his flaws has a much better appreciation for logic than you have.

Mr_Anony:
Please don't get offended when I say this but wiegraf for all his flaws has a much better appreciation for logic than you have.

Hehehe. Please don't make me laugh.

A christian talking about appreciation of logic. You wouldn't know what logic is if it slaps you in the face.

Please continue your god-son-holy spirit tales by the moonlight.

If you want an azz-whipping from me, open a another thread and tell me if you believe in Santa Clause.

advocate666:

Hehehe. Please don't make me laugh.

A christian talking about appreciation of logic. You wouldn't know what logic is if it slaps you in the face.

Please continue your god-son-holy spirit tales by the moonlight.

If you want an azz-whipping from me, open a another thread and tell me if you believe in Santa Clause.

Lol.....SMH

Mr_Anony:
All well and good. I have seen that the definitions you chose for the word apologetics are geared at christians only. Well those are not a correct representatation of the meaning of the word. The word comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means to explain a position. whenever you debate, you are engaging in apologetics. However, I can understand your confusion because the word apologetics has been christianized like the words salvation, redemption, covenant etc but let us not dwell on words and meanings at this point let us move on to burden of proof and reasons for not believing.

I'll use your quote to show you what I mean.


"there is no reason to" here is a non-answer.

Let us say I asked you why don't you believe in Santa and you said that there is no reason, and ask me for evidence

I reply that Santa brings the presents and I have seen him,

The moment you start arguing that the person that brings the presents is not Santa but daddy dressed in funny red clothes, you are providing and explaining your reason why you don't believe.

When I reply that daddy never says "Ho Ho Ho" in a weird voice. And you respond that daddy just makes his voice sound like that, you are defending your reason for not believing in santa ..... and so on and so forth.

By this time you are now fully engaged in Non-Santa apologetics as opposed to my Santa apologetics.

Hating the word apologetics doesn't change the fact that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are atheist apologists same as you, logicboy, cyrexx e.t.c.

Erm, yeah, that's a google search. It's a collection of definitions from various sources, most of them agree with me, not you. Like you've noted, the word is mostly used in the context of religion, and it is related to defending your position. In essence, defending doctrine.

Applying the word to atheism is disingenuous. Similarly to how you conflate sins and crimes. What doctrine do atheists have to defend? Or theists for that matter. Theists would engage in apologetics to defend their religion, not theism. That is how the word is commonly used. In fact, it's usually used with xtianity in particular, but we can ignore that.

And 'there's no reason to' is invalid simply because you say so? You can't escape the burden. You make the claim, you defend it. Neither of us is obligated to spend time disproving something that's not been proven, that's utter nonsense. Again, we aren't the ones making unsubstantiated claims here, you are. We aren't on the defense, we're examining the evidence (where y'all mostly fall short, it's amazing you can still keep it up after all this time)

You just want to use the word apologetics because it sounds like apologize, making it seem to those ignorant of the words usage that the burden of proof rests with us atheists. Disingenuous

wiegraf:

Erm, yeah, that's a google search. It's a collection of definitions from various sources, most of them agree with me, not you. Like you've noted, the word is mostly used in the context of religion, and it is related to defending your position. In essence, defending doctrine.

Applying the word to atheism is disingenuous. Similarly to how you conflate sins and crimes. What doctrine do atheists have to defend? Or theists for that matter. Theists would engage in apologetics to defend their religion, not theism. That is how the word is commonly used. In fact, it's usually used with xtianity in particular, but we can ignore that.

And 'there's no reason to' is invalid simply because you say so? You can't escape the burden. You make the claim, you defend it. Neither of us is obligated to spend time disproving something that's not been proven, that's utter nonsense. Again, we aren't the ones making unsubstantiated claims here, you are. We aren't on the defense, we're examining the evidence (where y'all mostly fall short, it's amazing you can still keep it up after all this time)

You just want to use the word apologetics because it sounds like apologize, making it seem to those ignorant of the words usage that the burden of proof rests with us atheists. Disingenuous

The bolded is why you are trying to run away from the word? lol. Funny enough the similarity between apologetics and apologize didn't cross my mind (maybe I've been into it too long that it doesn't sound negative to me)

I have shown you why what you are doing is atheist apologetics using the santa example. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum my dear.

a•pol•o•get•ics n. (used with a sing. verb) 1.
The branch of theology that is concerned with
defending or proving the alleged truth of
Christian doctrines. 2. Formal argumentation in
defense of something, such as a position or
system.

I think Anonny's point will be that atheist sort of apologetics fall into definition two, which simply means formal argumentation about a position u hold! Now just because the word has a christian root does not necessarily means it can't be used in other ways, take for instance one can use the term bible to refer a very importan text like the book proves to be the bible of chemists, now that is simply usage, the word christen means to name, particularly christians use it to refer to a naming ceremony like wise people of various religious background use it esp. In the west to refer to a naming ceremony. All this to mean that words can be used in differnt context, neither is wiwigrab nor 666 a gramatician or linguist to forbid the use word apologist in the context that means clearly one who formally defend his position! Q.E.D

vedaxcool: a•pol•o•get•ics n. (used with a sing. verb) 1.
The branch of theology that is concerned with
defending or proving the alleged truth of
Christian doctrines. 2. Formal argumentation in
defense of something, such as a position or
system.

I think Anonny's point will be that atheist sort of apologetics fall into definition two, which simply means formal argumentation about a position u hold! Now just because the word has a christian root does not necessarily means it can't be used in other ways, take for instance one can use the term bible to refer a very importan text like the book proves to be the bible of chemists, now that is simply usage, the word christen means to name, particularly christians use it to refer to a naming ceremony like wise people of various religious background use it esp. In the west to refer to a naming ceremony. All this to mean that words can be used in differnt context, neither is wiwigrab nor 666 a gramatician or linguist to forbid the use word apologist in the context that means clearly one who formally defend his position! Q.E.D

a•pol•o•get•ics n. (used with a sing. verb) 1.
The branch of theology that is concerned with
defending or proving the alleged truth of
Christian doctrines. 2. Formal argumentation in
defense of something, such as a position or
system.


Definition 2 is a meaningless definition. So, if I claim that Vedaxcool is an Arabic name and you disagree with explanaitions of how Arabic language works- would you then be engaging in "name apoligetics" defending your name?


Apologetics mostly relates to a religion or religious position.

Logicboy03:

a•pol•o•get•ics n. (used with a sing. verb) 1.
The branch of theology that is concerned with
defending or proving the alleged truth of
Christian doctrines. 2. Formal argumentation in
defense of something, such as a position or
system.


Definition 2 is a meaningless definition. So, if I claim that Vedaxcool is an Arabic name and you disagree with explanaitions of how Arabic language works- would you then be engaging in "name apoligetics" defending your name?


Apologetics mostly relates to a religion or religious position.

The word is mostly not only meaning you can use it in other context. Apologetics can even be used in political context e.g. Communist apologist, PDP apologist etc. Your example on name is hilarious indeed but the fact are neither you wiwi grab or 666 are considered linguist to forbid the usage of the word apologist when speaking of atheists, now prophets is a word used for mainly religious context, but we have heard the words communist prophet or eveganlical atheist, if you are not getting my drift don't bother replying! The point is you can be goat apologist, a gay apologist, a sharia apologist a capitalist apologist an anti capitalist apologist, well u can even be a marijuana apologist
That is language for you!



Q.E.D

vedaxcool:

The word is mostly not only meaning you can use it in other context. Apologetics can even be used in political context e.g. Communist apologist, PDP apologist etc. Your example on name is hilarious indeed but the fact are neither you wiwi grab or 666 are considered linguist to forbid the usage of the word apologist when speaking of atheists, now prophets is a word used for mainly religious context, but we have heard the words communist prophet or eveganlical atheist, if you are not getting my drift don't bother replying! The point is you can be goat apologist, a gay apologist, a sharia apologist a capitalist apologist an anti capitalist apologist, well u can even be a marijuana apologist
That is language for you!



Q.E.D

Fail......I left the trap open for yu to fail. I think this is how I will be debate dubious theists like you.

Apologetics has to mostly with religion. What I did not mention was that outside religion, apologetics can only apply to an ideology or a philosophy or a body of thought. You fail because atheism is none of these.

You cant engage in apologetics for arsenal football club or for eba preparation. You make it silly when you apply it outside a philosphy or ideology.


You made example of communist apologist- communism is an ideology not atheism.


-~Vedaxcool owned.

Logicboy03:


Fail......I left the trap open for yu to fail. I think this is how I will be debate dubious theists like you.

Apologetics has to mostly with religion. What I did not mention was that outside religion, apologetics can only apply to an ideology or a philosophy or a body of thought. You fail because atheism is none of these.

You cant engage in apologetics for arsenal football club or for eba preparation. You make it silly when you apply it outside a philosphy or ideology.


You made example of communist apologist- communism is an ideology not atheism.


-~Vedaxcool owned.

And the mostly problem keeps locking u up! Again the word is mostly not only, all can see how he has dribble his way into where we want him, now he has been forced to accept definition 2 which clearly states that apologetics involves defending a position now he accepts that apologetics can be use other than in a religious context.

Atheist Apologist: one who defends the view point of atheism by providing formal auguementations to prove the correctness of atheist view point/position.

Q.E.D

vedaxcool:

And the mostly problem keeps locking u up! Again the word is mostly not only, all can see how he has dribble his way into where we want him, now he has been forced to accept definition 2 which clearly states that apologetics involves defending a position now he accepts that apologetics can be use other than in a religious context.

Atheist Apologist: one who defends the view point of atheism by providing formal auguementations to prove the correctness of atheist view point/position.

Q.E.D

Did I ever say or imply that apologetics cant be used outside a religious context?


You were debunked. Stop playing straw men. Fail

Logicboy03:



Did I ever say or imply that apologetics cant be used outside a religious context?


You were debunked. Stop playing straw men. Fail

EPIC FAIL!!! After denying it usage in other context by rejection definition 2 you now plead insanity by insisting definition 2 is correct. Good since we both agree that it can be used in other contexts, then there is no need to get worked up over your failure in understanding the simple definition of atheist apologist! We are clear that apologetic has other usage besides religion or religious. And my definitoon of atheism apologetics remains very correct as it demonstrate in simple english the application of the word apologist!

Q.E.D

vedaxcool:

EPIC FAIL!!! After denying it usage in other context by rejection definition 2 you now plead insanity by insisting definition 2 is correct. Good since we both agree that it can be used in other contexts, then there is no need to get worked up over your failure in understanding the simple definition of atheist apologist! We are clear that apologetic has other usage besides religion or religious. And my definitoon of atheism apologetics remains very correct as it demonstrate in simple english the application of the word apologist!

Q.E.D

Nomsense. Improved definition 2.


Keep lying

Logicboy03:


Nomsense. Improved definition 2.


Keep lying

Now everyone is clear that u first rejected definition 2 only to turn around and validate! Pointing you out as a hypocrite!

Officer Douche wants to have a word with you:

vedaxcool:

Now everyone is clear that u first rejected definition 2 only to turn around and validate! Pointing you out as a hypocrite!

Officer Douche wants to have a word with you:

Lies. I gave a better definition- outside religion, apologetics have to do with ideologies.


Anyway, it is ironic that a muslims should use a south park character after south park embarrassed the Prophet!


BTW, the officers name is officer Barbrady not officer douche.




Epic fail!

A man could lack respect for his parents, his fellow human beings, religion, but common civility requires that he respect Officer Douche when he says take a walk nothing to see here then he means take that walk! This atheist don't have respect for the law!

vedaxcool: A man could lack respect for his parents, his fellow human beings, religion, but common civility requires that he respect Officer Douche when he says take a walk nothing to see here then he means take that walk! This atheist don't have respect for the law!

Trololololololol

Logicboy03:


Lies. I gave a better definition- outside religion, apologetics have to do with ideologies.


Anyway, it is ironic that a muslims should use a south park character after south park embarrassed the Prophet!


BTW, the officers name is officer Barbrady not officer douche.




Epic fail!

I really don't think you can get through to him with reason. Imagine trying to communicate with a tellytubby. Or better yet, attempting to reason with a caveman.

You give vedax a mattress to sleep on, he'll probably pray to it since he wouldn't understand how something could be so firm yet so soft, then go look for the goat skin he so loves to rest his back on. He'd apply that solution (prayer, deification, etc) to anything he doesn't understand, which is just about anything your average caveman wouldn't understand. He would think that's excellent logic. That's what you're up against.

Now, preferring goat skins is sometimes fine, with some people they grew up with goat skins for beds so they're just used to it, or they have fond memories etc. They would however be able to see how the mattress is a reasonable option, they just wouldn't care for it. In vedaxxx's case he's so stoopid that if you tried to point out some simple things about anything at all it would require you find a goat to translate for you, to explain concepts in the way a goat could comprehend them.

To top that up there are some things that are just simply beyond his ability to grasp, he simply does not have the tools needed to understand them. Like the slaves you mentioned in one of your post, where the woman freeing slaves said she'd have saved more had they known they were slaves. I'm sure she pointed out time and again to them that they were slaves, it was obviously futile. Vedaxx simply doesn't know some things and cannot comprehend them even if they were pointed out to him in goatspeak. Actually, the concepts are so alien to people who think in goatspeak it would require the remarkable ones to comprehend them, so maybe I'm a bit hard vedaxx, but meh.

By the way, I've not seen captain caveman (as he seems to be on a mission to protect the mountains from the atheist world domination agenda, judging by the comment in my sig), aka sweetnecta in a while. He left? Meh as well..


Trademark vedaxx:
Smiley smiley smiley
BUHAHAHAHAHA

wiegraf:

I really don't think you can get through to him with reason. Imagine trying to communicate with a tellytubby. Or better yet, attempting to reason with a caveman.

You give vedax a mattress to sleep on, he'll probably pray to it since he wouldn't understand how something could be so firm yet so soft, then go look for the goat skin he so loves to rest his back on. He'd apply that solution (prayer, deification, etc) to anything he doesn't understand, which is just about anything your average caveman wouldn't understand. He would think that's excellent logic. That's what you're up against.

Now, preferring goat skins is sometimes fine, with some people they grew up with goat skins for beds so they're just used to it, or they have fond memories etc. They would however be able to see how the mattress is a reasonable option, they just wouldn't care for it. In vedaxxx's case he's so stoopid that if you tried to point out some simple things about anything at all it would require you find a goat to translate for you, to explain concepts in the way a goat could comprehend them.

To top that up there are some things that are just simply beyond his ability to grasp, he simply does not have the tools needed to understand them. Like the slaves you mentioned in one of your post, where the woman freeing slaves said she'd have saved more had they known they were slaves. I'm sure she pointed out time and again to them that they were slaves, it was obviously futile. Vedaxx simply doesn't know some things and cannot comprehend them even if they were pointed out to him in goatspeak. Actually, the concepts are so alien to people who think in goatspeak it would require the remarkable ones to comprehend them, so maybe I'm a bit hard vedaxx, but meh.

By the way, I've not seen captain caveman (as he seems to be on a mission to protect the mountains from the atheist world domination agenda, judging by the comment in my sig), aka sweetnecta in a while. He left? Meh as well..


Trademark vedaxx:
Smiley smiley smiley
BUHAHAHAHAHA

You are right on Vedaxcool. You can explain things to him over and over again with no progress in him understanding.

Anyways, I like Sweetnecta. He is a cool guy, that is the vibe he gives despite being a devout muslim.

Logicboy03:



You are right on Vedaxcool. You can explain things to him over and over again with no progress in him understanding.

Anyways, I like Sweetnecta. He is a cool guy, that is the vibe he gives despite being a devout muslim.

Compared to vedaxx a rabid dog would seem reasonble. With sweetnecta yes, it's the indoctrintion that gets in the way. Like say crazyman

wiegraf:

Compared to vedaxx a rabid dog would seem reasonble. With sweetnecta yes, it's the indoctrintion that gets in the way. Like say crazyman

Crazyman!!! Funny guy that!

vedaxcool:
Atheist Apologist: one who defends the view point of atheism by providing formal auguementations to prove the correctness of atheist view point/position.

I think this definition pretty much sums it up

Mr_Anony:

I think this definition pretty much sums it up

Anony, you've read many dictionary entries, they all give priority to the definition which includes religion, even the one our genius uses. In fact quite a few don't even use your definition. Yet you somehow think yourself the expert and declared them all wrong. The word was coined by xtian theologists. The wiki entry has a list of apologist organizations etc. There are even pantheist apologists. No mention of agnostics, let alone atheists involved in any 'apologist' organizations whatsoever. Makes sense since they're not religions (not sure what pantheists were doing associating themselves with apologists) Heck, even deists don't bother with the term, and they do believe in god(s). Of course you expect all this to be ignored and you create atheist apologists. Is there any period in time when you're not deluded?