🚀 go-pugleaf

"The Watcher" <don'tgo@there.com> wrote in message 
news:4376ee89.1002720@news.ritternet.com...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 20:44:01 -0600, "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@Tsenuf.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Watcher" <don'tgo@there.com> wrote in message
>>news:43767014.15599620@news.ritternet.com...
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 12:03:14 -0600, "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@Tsenuf.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"The Watcher" <don'tgo@there.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:43758236.2152813@news.ritternet.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:52:57 -0800, Don Homuth <dhomuth1@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:45:42 -0600, "D. A. Tsenuf" <DA@Tsenuf.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:SaqdnTd9r9NtKunenZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> In article <dl286u$1iim$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Elmo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> God's existance -- or the lack thereof -- is not an issue that can
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> settled
>>>>>>>>> by scientific methods.  Nor is it in the realm of Biology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not?  Who knows, maybe there is a signature in the 'junk' DNA. 
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, but since the secularists BELIEVE that there is no god, in what
>>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>their "religious" fervor and zeal any different from those who 
>>>>>>>believe
>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>there is a God ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So long as it is a mere Belief on either side, what cause to demand
>>>>>>that one be superior to the other?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Frankly, except for the side of the coin they espouse, I can't tell
>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>apart in every other aspect of their behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Religionists believe there Is a god.  Or gods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Atheists believe there is/are Not.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do? Who told you that? I'm an atheist and I don't believe that.
>>>>
>>>>Then you don't know the meaining of the word "Atheist".
>>>
>>> Wrong. I know SEVERAL meanings for it. Just because I prefer to use the
>>> one that
>>> fits best doesn't mean I'm wrong, does it? Unless you've been appointed
>>> Grand
>>> Poobah of the English Language, I'll continue to use that definition.
>>> (snip)
>>
>>Then yuo're not useing the English langauge
>
> Ah, then you HAVE been appointed Grand Poobah of the English Language? 
> What was
> your appointment date? Who appointed you?
>

No
Unlike you, I just use a dictionary to look up accepted usage
Clearly your usage is nowhere near recognized as accepted usage.
has nothing to do with your fixation about Grand Poobahs.


>>Why don't you use a dictionary
>
> Was that a question?
>
>>It will save you from lokking plain stupid.
>
> Speaking of "lokking" plain stupid, how about if I type in ONE of the
> definitions of atheism from ONE of the dictionaries I have handy. This is 
> the
> first definition listed under atheism in the Second College Edition of the
> American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
>
> Isn't that interesting? Just what I've been saying all along. :/
> Guess that makes YOU "lokk" plain stupid, doesn't it?

Your memory is short and you just contradicted yourself whole slobbering all 
over your shirt
=========================
==Me: Religionists believe there Is a god.  Or gods.
==Me    theists believe there is/are Not.
==
==You They do? Who told you that? I'm an atheist and I don't believe that.
=========================

Apparently you like projecting on others your own shortcomings.