[satire]Right: so there is no objective difference between 1000 liters of petrol and 1 liter of petrol. It is why they cost the same at the filling station, because the filling station can’t tell the difference between them either! It is brilliant! I’m going to save soooo much money now. Oh but since there is no objective difference between $1 and $1000; I guess saving money is pointless. [/satire]
Yes yes, I remember that Joke from first grade. What weighs more, 1000 liters of petrol or 1 liter of petrol? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … ‘It’s all petrol.’ No one but an idiot will fall for this one. Ha ha ha ha.
I rather have some mixed feelings concerning the facts of my creation of the two of you.
As the only uncreated one, I alone possess the power to ignore your relentless denials of the overwhelming absence of relevant counter-arguments to a “devil’s advocate” position,
regarding debatable ambiguity, ostensibly for an attempt at non-existent objectivity…
Rather than addressing your feeble attempts at braggadocio, I am compelled by some vague aspect of my particular reality to provide you both with the following…
“Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach him how to speak with a sarcastic tone and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Is it an objective fact or can it be influenced by subjective opinions and perceptions, if so then by how much do you imagine? Do take your time…
That’s a lie, and not remotely what you claimed, here it is again:
Have the integrity to admit when you make an error, and don’t try and obfuscate with this sort of pitiful guff. If you’d bothered to read my original response you could have avoided repeating your idiotic claim.
The belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
a particular system of faith and worship.
So whilst some atheists may indeed have a religion, Buddhists for example, most do not, so again your claim is demonstrably wrong, or so poorly worded it is meaningless. Do try and consult a dictionary before making these ridiculous claims.
Does this include the many Nobel laureates who are also theists? Again this is a spectacularly stupid sweeping generalisation that borders on bigotry.
I could care less how you feel, nor am I impressed by irrational fallacies like your ad hominem here.
That’s one damn clever chap, I bet that chap might survive many a drought that kills off his less profound peers with fussier drinking habits.
If I can take you to task though, he’s a chimpanzee, and therefore is an ape not a monkey. Before any of our credulous theistic friends get all bent out of shape, you know how creationists get about using the proper taxonomical grouping. There are no “kinds” in biology thank you very much.