Quake3World

seza wrote:"i am aethist" doesn't answer the question.

You're probably just trolling but i'll bite: are you some kind of moron? It does answer the question. I don't understand how you can see it any other way, unless you have no idea what the concept of atheism is about.

seza wrote:trying to guess where someone's thoughts are going is such an amateur response. book smartsess

what

andyman wrote:

Memphis wrote:Anyone watch Colbert's God-Off? Pissed myself i did.

http://thelaverytory.blogspot.com/2008/ ... d-off.html

lol, Ctulhu as a wildcard

Geebs wrote:

seza wrote:"i am aethist"

i am legend.

Ryoki wrote:[You're probably just trolling but i'll bite: are you some kind of moron? It does answer the question. I don't understand how you can see it any other way, unless you have no idea what the concept of atheism is about.

i must have missed the 'all aethist memo' that was sent out. i don't really care what he chooses to identify with. i simply wanted to know what he thought about souls in animals since he brought up the question of it/them after replying to minnesota fats earlier. selective readers are so much like politicians

i have no case but i'll just post a blue smiley

seza wrote:i must have missed the 'all aethist memo' that was sent out. i don't really care what he chooses to identify with. i simply wanted to know what he thought about souls in animals since he brought up the question of it/them after replying to minnesota fats earlier. selective readers are so much like politicians

So then, either you don't really understand what atheism is or you don't really understand how pointing out logical inconsistencies in your stupid animal-souls-question has nothing to do with belief. Which is it?

Do you even realize what you have done?

You've made the priests jobless and the Christians crying like babies.

Fuck seza, I had thought you might be a little smarter than that. Guess I was wrong. No smarts.

i wanted a literal explanation of what a soul means to someone. i love debating you see. (if the exchanges i get from most here even qualifies as that) literal. maybe i should have said 'literally' to help ease the influx of fucking foolish responses i should have seen would come. and i realize most of you have no higher education and enjoy your jerry springer entertainment, but seriously...don't pretend there's something i don't get. public school systems

You asked if geebs believed animals have souls. An atheist doesn't believe in souls. In saying "I'm an atheist" he means fucking no he doesn't believe animals or any other thing on the planet has a soul. Pretty simple. But you can go ahead and try to change what you meant now.

scourge it honestly pains me to converse with you. did geebs tell me he was an aethiest at first? or after i asked again? just because you label yourself something doesn't mean you can't have differing degrees. my friend is a mormon, but doesn't believe in a lot of what you would think mormons believe. geebs could be aethiest, but still somehow have an explanation of what a soul means and if he thinks animals have them. i didn't know he was aethiest when i asked the question. should i color in between the lines a little larger and brighter for you? or do you kind of understand now? southern american intellect trying to act anything but...it doesn't suit you scourge, this here thinking

Well let's see, no he didn't tell you at first, but after he did you still seemed rather confused. Someone who does not believe in deities, or any other such nonsense surely would not believe in souls. If it really is that confusing to you maybe you have outsmarted yourself in trying to make this more than it really is in your little aloof, condescending superiority complex. Really, you're starting to look like a twat.

seza wrote:scourge it honestly pains me to converse with you. geebs could be aethiest, but still somehow have an explanation of what a soul means and if he thinks animals have them. i didn't know he was aethiest when i asked the question.

Scourge wrote:i shit outside, watch nascar, wrestling, drink budweiser, and work at walmart, etc...

scourge, please leave the thread and do not return. you're a strain on contribution and society. [edit] wait let me add a frown icon to show how sad i am for you

seza wrote:hey i'm just wondering if you believe animals have souls. take it no further than that doc

Geebs wrote:I'm an atheist.

seza wrote:"i am aethist" doesn't answer the question

Yes it does. If this still doesn't show you why everyone is laughing and pointing at you then you may need pictures and a first grade teacher to explain it to you. The high horse does not suit you. Please step down.

Oh and don't bother. I'm done.

i'll give you hicks one thing, you just won't stay down. here's what 5 seconds of google search does which happens to diarrhea all over your grade school semantics.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/188874

quote: Do Atheists believe in the "soul"? Is there a definition they'd use?
answer: Some do, and some don't. It's a philosophical as well as religious topic, and it's not a consistent belief among atheists as far as I know.

i don't know how much more clear i can be and how much more thick you and most others in this thread will be.

here's 2

Scourge wrote:Oh and don't bother. I'm done.

scourge you were done the minute you decided it was a good idea to reply my way. stick to debates with your litter.

OK you baited one more out of me. When geebs posted it, it was a statement meant to answer your question. And the 'no' was obvious to everyone but you. How much more clear do you need it? I mean really ffs. It was meant as an answer. Seriously pull your head out of your ass and realize that your fucking question was answered. I guess people are supposed to infer some 'great meaning' from " do you believe animals have souls?"

Scourge wrote:OK you baited one more out of me. When geebs posted it, it was a statement meant to answer your question. And the 'no' was obvious to everyone but you. How much more clear do you need it? I mean really ffs. It was meant as an answer. Seriously pull your head out of your ass and realize that your fucking question was answered. I guess people are supposed to infer some 'great meaning' from " do you believe animals have souls?"

oh so you've returned scourge. welcome back. glad my internet words managed to break down your resolve so easily...i'm however not in the least bit suprised.

here, let me quote myself 5 thousand years back to make another point you'll just tugboatingly not understand.

seza wrote:"i am aethist" doesn't answer the question. trying to guess where someone's thoughts are going is such an amateur response. book smartsess

and then i'll follow that up with a...

seza wrote:http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/188874

quote: Do Atheists believe in the "soul"? Is there a definition they'd use?
answer: Some do, and some don't. It's a philosophical as well as religious topic, and it's not a consistent belief among atheists as far as I know.

lastly i'll add once more you're the culmination of dumb and sprinkle a for some good measure

LawL wrote:

i hope that person in the picture is scourge - looks EXACTLY like i would imagine

Yep. It's the boring, redneck, trailor trash, tedious dolt in all his glory.

only seza could make a comment about "book smarts" and then follow it up by refusing to argue with anyone without a higher education I guess it's true that the size of a brain doesn't reflect its capacity

Only a moron would think that a discussion of other people's belief structures requires that the participants take a stance based on their own personal beleifs. That's a bit too concrete for philosophy, no? Hence your question was, is and always will be an irrelevance that demonstrated so clearly that you haven't a clue that it was barely worth dignifying with an answer.

lol get your hand off it Queefs.

FaiL

Geebs wrote:only seza could make a comment about "book smarts" and then follow it up by refusing to argue with anyone without a higher education I guess it's true that the size of a brain doesn't reflect its capacity

Only a moron would think that a discussion of other people's belief structures requires that the participants take a stance based on their own personal beleifs. That's a bit too concrete for philosophy, no? Hence your question was, is and always will be an irrelevance that demonstrated so clearly that you haven't a clue that it was barely worth dignifying with an answer.

if i refused arguments with anyone without a higher education, like you believe i see it (interpretation, good old), i'd be stuck talking to myself most of the time. (but to my credit, i do think and have proven on one or more occasion... that stupid people do indeed exist here in large weapons of mass destruction quantities)

geebs, you faltered as soon as you jumped to the conclusion of where you thought i was going to go with my question. a question you've yet to directly and clearly dignify with an answer better still. this isn't chess. it had nothing to do with anything mentioned prior in the thread. i remembered you're a doctor and i saw you mention the word soul. lightbulb. how could i resist? what's wrong with taking a stance on your personal belief? are you wary someone will question it? you are right on the relevance of my question though. would have been best to have just ignored me