Are you an atheist? Then you're probably a PSYCHOPATH!

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
If you can't define that term you so passionately argue about, you should not deal in that kind of discussions.

I never have once argued that a general depiction of a god does not exist.

A god could very well exist. We have only explored a minute fraction of the universe. We hold very little knowledge about practically everything, although what we do know and have observed certainly paints a good picture on how the universe functions. But in the end, we have no idea if a generally-described god does or does not exist.

What we do know so far is that nature begets nature, and if that is the case for everything, there isn't a need for a god. Which incidentally is why I completely lack a belief that any sort of god exists; there's just no need for one.

What I do argue is specific descriptions of a god, such as one's found in all popular religions, which tend to make direct claims about nature, history, geology, cosmic evolution, biological evolution, so on and so forth. All topics we know a great deal about.

I will certainly argue that their specific description of god cannot possibly be true considering virtually everything goes against that description of the character and it's actions taken upon the universe, it's creation, and the things that exist within it.

As for the terminology, I argue that because we have developed them for a reason. We have terms so that it's easier for us to understand, share, and comprehend traits, or groups of traits and organize them in an easy-to-converse way.

You seem to not only misunderstand why anything that involves 'terms' exists, but the very topic your arguing, as well as why I argue what I argue. You have a gross misunderstanding of virtually everything that's been brought up in this topic.

I suggest reading a dictionary and educating yourself before any further responses.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
For the simple reason that you don't know what that term, "god" or "God" means, other than you trying to refute or deny what you don't even can define by yourself.

There are many people who don't follow any religions whom hold no defining features to a god and still believe that one exists.

Have you never heard of anyone that has stated "No, I'm not religious, but I still think a god likely exists". They too have no definition of god. The very fact that they believe one exists, however, makes them a theist. Because all that describes theism is: belief in the existence of a god or gods. Notice how it never once states "in order for you to be a theist, you need to come up with a definition of what a god is".

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
If you don't know what a table is, don't tell others what it is not.

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Please quote where I stated that "no gods exists".

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
Get it?

It appears you don't.

a reply to: Ghost147

Once again, maybe I haven'd mentioned it precisely already, but I do appreciate the huge effort you put into debunking and refuting false and un-substanciated god-concepts. You do that like nobody else does. I really mean it from the bottom of my heart.

Nevertheless...what you FAIL to do is to define what you think the term "god" or "God" means in YOUR very own terms.

You just don't do that. You come up with all kinds of reasonable sounding replys to posts, but I miss the one and only point you are supposed to make: What does the term God mean in YOUR definition? And here are some expamples that would count as some valid definitions, in my eyes:

1.) I don't deal in defining the term "god" or "God" myself, because.....(insert the reasons why)...which you already did. But that does not count as a valid definition, for the reasons I already elaborated on.

2.) Here is my ultra-short, personal definition of what that term means....(a defintion is given)...(I still wait for that one)...

3.) I refuse to do so, because I prefer to talk about something I have no idea of what it means, but some do and I quote them, that's what I'm best suited for. I'm a moron, because I talk about things I have no knowlegde of.

I guess you get my drift.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
Nevertheless...what you FAIL to do is to define what you think the term "god" or "God" means in YOUR very own terms.

A god, to me, means a number of things. It could mean a 'supreme being', usually with attributes such as; omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

A god would be a being, spirit or supernatural force that either creates or controls what we believe to be natural phenomena (such as gravity, the creation of the universe, the speed of light, the onset of life, etc.) through it's/their own power alone, not with the aid of advanced technology.

Satisfied?

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
You just don't do that. You come up with all kinds of reasonable sounding replys to posts, but I miss the one and only point you are supposed to make: What does the term God mean in YOUR definition?

I don't need to because it is irrelevant to the arguments I'm making.

Agnostic says, "Got any Fava beans?"

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
1.) I don't deal in defining the term "god" or "God" myself, because.....(insert the reasons why)...which you already did. But that does not count as a valid definition, for the reasons I already elaborated on.

I never stated I 'don't deal in defining the term for god'. I'm just stating that my view on what a god could be is irrelevant when we're talking about English definitions of terms.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
2.) Here is my ultra-short, personal definition of what that term means....(a defintion is given)...(I still wait for that one)...

Irrelevant to the conversation, unless you're just curious on my opinion, of which I doubt because you are also stating that a person shouldn't discuss 'god matters' if they don't have a definition for one.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
3.) I refuse to do so, because I prefer to talk about something I have no idea of what it means, but some do and I quote them, that's what I'm best suited for. I'm a moron, because I talk about things I have no knowlegde of

This one is ironic considering you don't understand any of the following terms, yet feel like arguing against them and about them: Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism, Pantheism (likely more to come).

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm a moron, because I talk about things I have no knowlegde of

It would be more than reasonable to say that nobody has 'knowledge of' god(s). So your point is moot.

a reply to: Ghost147

Isn't an Intellegent Psycopath actually a Sociopath?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Ghost147

Isn't an Intellegent Psycopath actually a Sociopath?

They both fall under Anti-Social Personality Disorders.

There are several differences between the two. As I mentioned before, Psychopaths are born, whereas Sociopaths are made. Psychopaths also tend to be more intelligent than Sociopaths, but that could simply be a matter of just how people become Sociopathic (poor upbringing, bad lifestyle, extreme brain trauma).

Furthermore, Psychopaths are a bit more of an extreme of the two. Where as Psychopaths don't have a conscience, Sociopaths typically have a conscience, but it’s very weak. There are also neurological differences as well.

Sociopaths also tend to be more erratic and impulsive with their actions, where as Psychopaths feel this impulse but tend to be far more collective and 'plotting' than sociopaths. Psychopaths tend to come off as charming, and come off as quite normal (if not 'too normal), but are very manipulative. Sociopaths, on the other hand are more erratic, rage-prone, and unable to lead as much of a normal life.

a reply to: Ghost147

that is funny because the persons I know of labelled by Psychologist to be sociopaths were highly intelligent, some spoke three languages, their crimes were highly thought out and when caught red handed they still would not admit they did any wrong or hurt anybody.

So maybe it goes both ways.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm not saying it's all black and white. There can certainly be sociopaths that are highly intelligent. Generally, however, psychopaths tend to have a higher intelligence overall than sociopaths.

The rejection of confession despite an obviously guilty case is a trait of both sociopaths and psycopaths

a reply to: Ghost147

I have a friend whose life was nearly destroyed by a psychopath with borderline personality disorder. Luckily a judge ordered a psych evail and some of the torment ended. My friend was diagnosed with PTSD from the situation. It involved his two kids. The mom had no care for the kids other than to be used as tools for her scams and plots. Strangely she was extremely religious and even had changed her name to a spiritual name.

a reply to: luthier

That's terrible, I feel sorry for your friend. People with Antisocial Personality Disorder probably have the widest impact over all of humanity, all because of just a few individuals. It's unfortunate there is no cure.

a reply to: Ghost147

They try dialectal behaviour therapy but of coarse a psychopath would never go through with it.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147

They try dialectal behaviour therapy but of coarse a psychopath would never go through with it.

Not only that, but I would say that being both a Psychopath as well has having BPD would be extremely rare since it's practically paradoxical. I would have serious doubts that DBT would have any effect what so ever on such an individual.

a reply to: Ghost147

Yeah it was a real special case. The psych evail shocked everyone in the court system . they took it very seriously. I could derail the thread with stories since we worked together my friend and I talked everyday. Turns out she was gay and had a whole plan for child support and allimony. Trapped him with the first kid. This was all in emails she wrote herself to a friend just as bonkers as she was. Her own brother happened apon while fixing her computer. He actually helped my friend out.

Just to say again she changed her name for her religion. So from an anecdotal perspective I have issues with the OP.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
No, I am not.
To positively offer an assertion, such as that there is no God, in a philosophic discussion, requires positive philosophic, logical, scientific, evidentiary support!

When did I directly claim that "there is no god"?

I never said you did.
You seem to have taken my generalities personally; another sign of a 'threatened belief'.

originally posted by: namelesss
That there is none, nor can there be, such positive assertion must be the symptom of a 'belief'.

So you believe that to be an atheist one must directly state that "there is no god"?
No, I host no 'beliefs'.
There are many atheists who directly state that "there is no God!"
I did not say 'all' (but I have yet to find an honest atheist to admit the possibility of a God, but that would be an 'agnostic', as I said), if you read what I wrote rather than being offended by what you imagine as a 'threat' to your 'beliefs/ego'.
Perhaps, before going on, you might more carefully read my post!

originally posted by: namelesss
But in this case it must, because the reason that one cannot 'prove' that something does not exist, is because everything exists! *__-

I never stated that There isn't a god. I simply stated that I lack a belief in one. That statement is not a positive assertion.
Again, there is not anything 'personal' here.
If you do not have an 'belief' or Knowledge, and are open to the possibility, then you are, as far as I can see, an agnostic!
I hear people who call themselves atheists denying God all over the place.
If the shoe doesn't fit you, what's the beef?
I offered a very specific 'shoe', if you read what I wrote.

originally posted by: namelesss
Again, I was careful to point out "The sect of atheists who assert that "there is no God"", just in case there is something of which I am unaware....

I see, so you were referring to a group of atheists. Not the total population of atheists.
Yes. The vast majority, it seems.
Merely lacking a 'belief' doesn't mean that you are an atheist!

originally posted by: namelesss
An atheist doesn't need to directly state "there is no god".
Hence my "The sect of atheists who assert that "there is no God""!

Excellent! Just wanted to clarify this point. It is a common misconception to relate all atheists under the "there is no god" assertion.
I was clear about that right from the beginning!
Had you read more carefully this whole thing could have been avoided!

originally posted by: namelesss
If there is an 'atheist' who says; I have no idea, and if new info arrives, I will revise my position of ignorance (the only honest intellectual position), then he is, I thought, an agnostic!

Agnosticism isn't a 'neutral' or 'undecided' position.
The definition of an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. The key point being "can never be known".
www.philosophypages.com...
agnosticism

"Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition. The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists.

I don't personally feel that we cannot know, but still lack a belief in any gods due to the observations we have made thus far. The term for my position is Atheism, more technically "soft atheism" or "weak atheism", versus "Hard/Strong Atheism" being a direct claim that 'there is no god'."

That "cannot" definition of 'agnosticism' is refuted by all mystics throughout history, and, thus, a faulty definition.
Knowledge = experience, and 'God' CAN, obviously, be experienced!
On the other hand, that definition puts the kibosh on your 'definition' of 'atheist', but I gave just such 'wiggle room' for your personal definition ('weak atheism' sounds mealy-mouthed, lukewarm, intellectually castrated...) right from the get-go!

originally posted by: namelesss
I did not say 'all' (but I have yet to find an honest atheist to admit the possibility of a God, but that would be an 'agnostic', as I said)

I'm sure if you ever have met these atheists you would simply and incorrectly labeled them as agnostic. Saying "there is a possibility" is not an agnostic position. It's not the acknowledgment that there is a god, It's just acknowledging that anything is possible.

If a person doesn't hold any beliefs in gods, then they are an atheist. There is a spectrum in both Theism and Agnosticism you seem to be actively ignoring.

originally posted by: namelesss
, if you read what I wrote rather than being offended by what you imagine as a 'threat' to your 'beliefs/ego'.
Perhaps, before going on, you might more carefully read my post!

You're projecting what you want me to react like into my posts, which I assure you are not in the very least threatened by your ignorance.

originally posted by: namelesss
If you do not have an 'belief' or Knowledge, and are open to the possibility, then you are, as far as I can see, an agnostic!

You view it this way because you misunderstand what Agnosticism is. It has nothing to do with "possibility", if you don't have any beliefs in gods then you're an atheist.

Atheism (Oxford Dictionaries): Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Atheism (according to Encyclopædia Britannica): "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons ... : for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God ... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers ... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."

Atheism (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy): An 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition.

Atheism (The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus Books): Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the gods

There's atheism.

Now let's look at Agnosticism:

Agnostic (Dictionary.com): a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Agnostic (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy): Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and unknowable.

Agnostic (OED Online, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. September 2012): A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God"

originally posted by: namelesss
I hear people who call themselves atheists denying God all over the place.
If the shoe doesn't fit you, what's the beef?
I offered a very specific 'shoe', if you read what I wrote.

Once again, you think I'm 'offended' by your remarks. On the contrary, I'm trying to educate you on a subject you don't seem to accurately comprehend.

There is a spectrum for Atheism and Theism.

There are Strong/Hard/Positive Atheist Positions, and there are Weak/Soft/Negative Atheist Positions.

There are Strong/Hard/Positive Theist Positions, and there are Weak/Soft/Negative Theist Positions.

A 'Strong Atheist Position' is: "There is no god".

A "Weak Atheist Position" is: "There is probably no god"

A 'Strong Theist position' is: "There is a god"

A "Weak Theist position" is: "There probably is a god"

One is an Explicit assertion and one is an Implicit Assertion.

You can read more about it Here

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
I did not say 'all' (but I have yet to find an honest atheist to admit the possibility of a God, but that would be an 'agnostic', as I said)

I'm sure if you ever have met these atheists you would simply and incorrectly labeled them as agnostic. Saying "there is a possibility" is not an agnostic position. It's not the acknowledgment that there is a god, It's just acknowledging that anything is possible.

You are quibbling.
It is the acknowledgement that a GOD is "possible"!
That 'God' is included in the all inclusive "anything".
What are you afraid of?
It seems so simple when there is nothing to defend...

If a person doesn't hold any beliefs in gods, then they are an atheist.

That is quite an assertion, as I host no 'beliefs', yet I am not an 'atheist'.
Your assertion would make all Enlightened mystics 'atheists'.
And that is not the case.

There is a spectrum in both Theism and Agnosticism you seem to be actively ignoring.

I don't see a 'spectrum', I see a bunch of 'beliefs' wriggling and contorting to maintain philosophically and scientifically untenable positions!
I see dissembling!
I am reminded of when the 'theory of 'materialism' was finally put to rest as obsolete, those with no emotional beliefs, no 'investments' just moved on to better theories.
Those 'believers' renamed it to 'physicalism' (since 'materialism' is refuted)!
The same for the 'Xtians' who, upon finding the term 'religion' under attack, renamed it 'a relationship'!
It is a common symptom of a 'belief infection'.

originally posted by: namelesss
, if you read what I wrote rather than being offended by what you imagine as a 'threat' to your 'beliefs/ego'.
Perhaps, before going on, you might more carefully read my post!

You're projecting what you want me to react like into my posts, which I assure you are not in the very least threatened by your ignorance.
Then I won't waste your time with any more of my ignorance.
Have a nice day.

originally posted by: namelesss
It is the acknowledgement that a GOD is "possible"!
That 'God' is included in the all inclusive "anything".
What are you afraid of?
It seems so simple when there is nothing to defend...

You are literally stating the exact same thing I just stated.

What the hell is your Point? Are you assuming that "Possibility" equals Agnosticism? Because it doesn't. I Just proved it doesn't by providing you a plethora of definitions from varying sources that all show the same defining trait of Agnosticism "Not Known and Not Knowable". "Possibility" has nothing to do with it.

Please reread the cited information, or find your own to support your claims like I have.

originally posted by: namelesss
That is quite an assertion, as I host no 'beliefs', yet I am not an 'atheist'.
Your assertion would make all Enlightened mystics 'atheists'.
And that is not the case.

No... It isn't "quite an assertion", I literally just proved it by providing you cited information.

Feel free to source your claims if you feel that isn't accurate.

If you don't have any beliefs in god, you're an atheist.

originally posted by: namelesss
I don't see a 'spectrum', I see a bunch of 'beliefs' wriggling and contorting to maintain philosophically and scientifically untenable positions!

Then you are rejecting reality.

I just proved how there is a spectrum by citing my information. Once again, If you simply want to ignore that, you might as well just step up and say "Sorry, I prefer to deny reality"

originally posted by: namelesss
Then I won't waste your time with any more of my ignorance.
Have a nice day.

Fantastic! Enjoy your delusion.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
It is the acknowledgement that a GOD is "possible"!
That 'God' is included in the all inclusive "anything".
What are you afraid of?
It seems so simple when there is nothing to defend...

You are literally stating the exact same thing I just stated.

So where's the beef? *__-

What the hell is your Point? Are you assuming that "Possibility" equals Agnosticism? Because it doesn't. I Just proved it doesn't by providing you a plethora of definitions from varying sources that all show the same defining trait of Agnosticism "Not Known and Not Knowable". "Possibility" has nothing to do with it.

Really?
You are making an absurd assertion and you find some websites to agree therefore you have 'proven' something?
"Not Known" can be stated from knowledge, experience, unlike AND UNKNOWABLE!
Which is an irrational illogical assertion!
So, to continue logically, if you cannot see where 'perhaps/possibly' and 'unknown' (at the moment, by 'me') are the same thing, and continue to argue, without introducing some new data, it becomes obvious to me that this is no longer a 'philosophical/logical' discussion but an excursion into 'belief-land'.
Emotional rather than intellectual.
Not that there is anything 'wrong' with such Perspective, that is simply not the sandbox in which I am playing.

Please reread the cited information, or find your own to support your claims like I have.

My 'claims' are fully supported by logic.

originally posted by: namelesss
That is quite an assertion, as I host no 'beliefs', yet I am not an 'atheist'.
Your assertion would make all Enlightened mystics 'atheists'.
And that is not the case.

No... It isn't "quite an assertion", I literally just proved it by providing you cited information.

I think that you would argue with a black man, to his black face that he wasn't really a black man because you found a few websites that back you up!! That " It isn't "quite an assertion", I literally just proved it by providing you cited information."
Because that is exactly what you are attempting to do.
Perhaps/possibly because you have some 'beliefs' to defend/justify?
To argue against the 'obvious' takes a fool, or a genius.
Or a 'believer'.

Feel free to source your claims if you feel that isn't accurate.

Logic and Knowledge/experience! *__-

If you don't have any beliefs in god, you're an atheist.

Yeah, I heard that already.
And my presence is all the evidence to refute your claim.
It is exactly as if you 'undeniably asserted' (claim to have 'proven' while offering websites in agreement with your position) that all humans have three hands.
I don' need no steenkin' website... *__- all I need is to step up!
My two-handed presence is all that is logically necessary to refute your Universal three-handed premise.

originally posted by: namelesss
I don't see a 'spectrum', I see a bunch of 'beliefs' wriggling and contorting to maintain philosophically and scientifically untenable positions!

Then you are rejecting reality.
I just proved how there is a spectrum by citing my information. Once again, If you simply want to ignore that, you might as well just step up and say "Sorry, I prefer to deny reality"

I do not deny the existence of your 'spectrum'!!!
I DO deny the sincerity and honesty of you 'believers'!
I deny that your 'spectrum' is anything more than the wiggle room of a 'belief infection'.
Logic and rationality are no more than the raw materials, to a 'believer', to mash however necessary to feed the beliefs!
That is why you cannot accept that 'unknown' does not mean 'maybe', because you have some egoic image to uphold.
Some 'belief'.
Where you see a 'spectrum', is see lies.
The religionistas, 'Xtians' in particular, in this case, at least have their Jesus to clearly inform them to "Be hot or be cold, but be lukewarm ('spectrum') and I will spew you from my mouth!"
You poor 'atheists' get no such Wise advice, so you know no better then your self-validating 'spectrum'.
Like floating in space!
You atheists need your own 'Jesus'!!!
(Note to self; possibility for a startup religion-not; Orthodox Atheism (tm)!)

So, yeah, of course there is a 'spectrum', everything exists!
I just have no respect for it intellectually or ethically.

originally posted by: namelesss
Then I won't waste your time with any more of my ignorance.
Have a nice day.

Fantastic! Enjoy your delusion.

Thank you, dear!
Have a nice night. *__-

originally posted by: namelesss
So where's the beef?

The 'beef' is that you are coming to an inaccurate conclusion based on the same description.

originally posted by: namelesss
Really?
You are making an absurd assertion and you find some websites to agree therefore you have 'proven' something?

Did you not even read the citations? I didn't "grab some random information that aggrees with me from a dark corner of the internet that's obscure and sketchy as hell". My sources are THE DICTIONARY, and ENCYCLOPEDIAS - Numerous ones at that, and one's that are both generalized and specialized in specific fields.

At this point the issue has nothing to do with semantics at all, but rather your inability to comprehend any information being presented.

originally posted by: namelesss
Emotional rather than intellectual.

Right, It would seem you lack the intellect to understand even where my sources are from.

originally posted by: namelesss
My 'claims' are fully supported by logic.

Logic has nothing to do with it. You're argument is of a definition of a word. Go and get a dictionary and prove your point.

originally posted by: namelesss
Perhaps/possibly because you have some 'beliefs' to defend/justify?
To argue against the 'obvious' takes a fool, or a genius.
Or a 'believer'.

WHAT "OBVIOUS"?!?!?! In Language we use words to describe specific things, actions and whatever else. In this case it's a particular group. You are making a claim that this group is something other than what the definition describes the group as.

This has nothing to do with belief. The entire issue here is that you're unable to even look at the responses I've given you and unable to grasp the concepts within them.

I have given you a plethora of definitions, all from the very sources every single word is defined as, all from the very sources which we look to find out more information about those words, and you haven't even blinked?

The only conclusion we can come to is that -for whatever reason- you must reject reality in order to hold onto a definition of a group that you hold, which is completely inaccurate to what every single thing that is used to define words as states.

Why does it even matter? If You stated "Uh, no, My "enlightenment" is actually defined as [this], and here's the proof" I would instantly say "my mistake, I had thought it was something else. My mind has changed" But you have been given Dictionary references, Oxford Encyclopedic references, Encyclopedia of Britannica references, University References, Encyclopedia of Philosophy references, and you instantly reject them as "absurd and random website sources"?

I mean honestly... Are you insane?

If every single thing that we use to define words agrees that "it is defined as this" and not whatever you define it as, then it's your definition that is wrong... Get over yourself.

originally posted by: namelesss
Logic and Knowledge/experience!

Logic, can be subjective. Knowledge is subjective, in this case. and experience is 100% subjective. You've proven absolutely nothing.

According to your reasoning a Schizophrenic individual's perspective is just as valid.

According to your reasoning My experience and knowledge is just as valid.

The irony is how illogical you evaluate reality around you.

Objective reasoning, however, is fantastically accurate. Just look at what I've achieved. I've gathered sources from the most prestigious and reputable places, all relevant to the discussion at hand. All of which are directly talking about our subject. And every single one of them agrees with each other.

So you can stick with your subjective delusion if you wish. I have the sources from the places that actually define words that back up my claims.

originally posted by: namelesss
Yeah, I heard that already.
And my presence is all the evidence to refute your claim.

"I believe it to be true, therefore it's true!" Fantastic work on your debating skills.

Feel free to return when you've discovered how to prove a point.

originally posted by: namelesss
I don' need no steenkin' website... *__- all I need is to step up!

Yeah! Who needs dictionaries anyways? They're always so bothersome! Who needs universities telling me what words mean? They never knew anything to begin with. Who needs encyclopedias? Such a bore.

originally posted by: namelesss
Thank you, dear!
Have a nice night.

Lets see if you respond yet again....