likearock

haha - do we all owe beer? Nah, I think I chipped in for the three of us. Ah, what the hell!

Fess up. The real reason for this thread was to try to force a buffer overflow in the subject field! Oh, to be HH, if only for a day.

You're a little late. See my previous post. You and I are using the narrower version of the definition. However according to several sources, the broader version, which also encompasses agnosticism, is equally acceptable. I just thought of something. This might be the first time in the history of SC where everybody is right!

Bullshit. When you say "America wasn't the first country to ever be hit by terrorist bombs.... but as soon as it does, the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice", that absolutely belittles it, no matter what context you put it in. "You are either with us or against us", G.W. Bush 11/6/2001, might reasonably be construed as a command for the rest of the world to sit up and take notice. So what? Why should anything the President did have any effect on the basic respect paid for the thousands who died on that day, most of whom probably never even voted for him? To suggest that the world had to be somehow "coerced" into "sitting up and taking notice" to the events of 9/11 is reprehensible. So why did he say it, then? You'll have to ask him. I didn't even vote for him. Maybe in your opinion. To me "the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice" sounds like a reluctant obligation. I just wish both sides would stop using 9/11 to further their political objectives (for example, in your diatribe below).

Bullshit. When you say "America wasn't the first country to ever be hit by terrorist bombs.... but as soon as it does, the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice", that absolutely belittles it, no matter what context you put it in. "You are either with us or against us", G.W. Bush 11/6/2001, might reasonably be construed as a command for the rest of the world to sit up and take notice. So what? Why should anything the President did have any effect on the basic respect paid for the thousands who died on that day, most of whom probably never even voted for him? To suggest that the world had to be somehow "coerced" into "sitting up and taking notice" to the events of 9/11 is reprehensible.

Bullshit. When you say "America wasn't the first country to ever be hit by terrorist bombs.... but as soon as it does, the rest of the world has to sit up and take notice", that absolutely belittles it, no matter what context you put it in.

3000 dead in one day. Did any IRA bombing ever come close to that? Did all the IRA bombings come close to that? The generally accepted death toll from terrorism in Northern Ireland is 3466. It is beyond any doubt that much of the financial backing for the IRA came from Irish-Americans. The USA is indeed a Johnny-come-Lately when it comes to outrage against terrorism. That's a separate question and one that I wouldn't argue with. What I was objecting to most was the charge that the only reason the world should consider 9/11 important was because it was an American attack. It was also the most deadly terrorist strike to date, by a wide margin.

3000 dead in one day. Did any IRA bombing ever come close to that? Did all the IRA bombings come close to that?

Ask them. And check out their car.

Actually, we're both right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

So what's the difference between atheism and agnosticism again? Enlighten us.

It ain't him. *** Gotta be...look at the post numbers! Oh, it's his account alright, but it ain't him, trust me.

To quote Kallend: unf*ckingbelievable. 'Killer' mistook Bible for gun 10/12/2005 16:46 - (SA) Belem, Brazil - The man accused of killing American nun and rain forest defender Dorothy Stang told a jury on Friday that he'd acted in self-defence after mistaking her Bible for a gun. Rayfran das Neves Sales is accused of killing Stang, 73, with six shots from a .38-caliber revolver on February 12 on a muddy road deep in the heart of the Amazon rain forest. Sales testified he and Stang had an argument over who owned the land he was working, and that Stang threatened to "finish him off" with the help of about 150 people living on a sustainable development reserve she was trying to establish. "She said: 'The weapon I have is this,' and reached into her bag," Sales said. "I didn't know what she was going to pull out of her bag so I shot her." Prosecutors allege that rancher Vitalmiro Moura offered Sales and co-defendant Clodoaldo Carlos Batista 50 000 reals ($25 000) to kill the nun, who spent the last 30 years of her life defending poor settlers in the rain forest. The prosecution contends that she was reading her Bible when she was shot at close range. Batista told the court he was unaware that Sales was armed and about to kill Stang when the two met her in the forest. During the trial prosecutors showed videotapes of confessions that contradicted the defendants' testimony at the trial. They also showed three videotaped re-enactments of the crime filmed shortly after the killing. In two of the tapes, each of the defendants separately re-enacted their version of events. A third version was provided by the only witness to the killing - a man who appeared in court wearing a ski-mask and a bulletproof vest. Stang's brother and sister, who flew from the United States to attend the trial, were visibly upset by the video. "I wasn't watching it. I only saw the scene in my head. I couldn't watch it," said Marguerite Stang, 72, who was in tears and had to be comforted by one of the nuns who worked with her late sister. Sales said on Friday that he didn't intend to kill Stang, but that after firing the first shot he "lost his head".

*** HI KEV! How the hell R-U?!? It ain't him.

Still unconvinced I see! Let's recap. You claim: Dictionary definition of atheism: Now if you still want to argue the point, I suggest you take it up with Merriam-Webster. However, I'm inclined to think you'll be hurting your debate with the Creationists once they see that you are unwilling to accept the dictionary definitions of words.

atypical? apoplexy apple attention John, did anyone every tell you you were "without nal"? And you are "without sshole".

atypical? apoplexy apple attention John, did anyone every tell you you were "without nal"?

I'm not aware of anyone actually disputing that the guy said he had a bomb, just that they did not hear him say it, while others say they definitely did hear him say it. However, the only ones that say they heard him say it are the same air marshals that shot him. If he said it in the plane as was claimed, then it's odd no passengers or flight attendants can corroborate it. From the original news link:

Hey, you forgot the best one.

Actually, when Ali fought Foreman I'd say Ali was past his prime. No one really can be sure just how much he lost after his 3-year Vietnam War suspension. But let me be the one person to suggest that Tyson might win. Everyone points to Foreman and Liston as similar examples because of their power and agression. However, Tyson had something else that they did not have - incredible hand speed. And since Ali relied so much on his own speed (both hand and foot ), he might not have been able to overcome Tyson's assault as easily as he did with Foreman. But I do agree that in order for Tyson to have won that fantasy fight, he'd have to do it by early knockout. Endurance was never his strong suit, even in his prime.

Was this ID recycled, or is someone impersonating PhillyKev?

Boy, you really must be an atheist! If you believe so strongly that it means something after you were shown it doesn't, I guess that carries over into belief in God (or the absence of God) as well.

I agree. You may not be able to prove the non-existence of God, but you certainly believe in it. It's not the absence of belief.

Please reread my post and show me where I wrote only. Oh you can't find it? I wonder why. Nope, but the implication comes across when you write "Most lefties are". So you think that most implies all. Very interesting. I think somebody needs to take a course in basic logic 101. Actually, "only the left" does not imply "all of the left" either.

Wikipedia is your friend.