U.S. Church Membership Falls Below Majority for First Time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Only about 7% of the global population is atheist or agnostic with a good majority in China. The rest have faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Atheist pp who wants to zero out Melinda Gates must not be much a feminist. Didn’t somebody above say some (not all!) atheists are misogynists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Ha! Doubling down with Ad Hom and Strawman again! In a hole? Keep digging!

No one discounted Melinda Gates. You are the one discounting Bill.

You really are not good at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Ha! Doubling down with Ad Hom and Strawman again! In a hole? Keep digging!

No one discounted Melinda Gates. You are the one discounting Bill.

You really are not good at this.

Misogynistic troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Ha! Doubling down with Ad Hom and Strawman again! In a hole? Keep digging!

No one discounted Melinda Gates. You are the one discounting Bill.

You really are not good at this.

Misogynistic troll.

Lol you are too funny! HAve a great weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Ha! Doubling down with Ad Hom and Strawman again! In a hole? Keep digging!

No one discounted Melinda Gates. You are the one discounting Bill.

You really are not good at this.

Misogynistic troll.

An atheist trying to make religious people look stupid? Or just a stupid religious person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Ha! Doubling down with Ad Hom and Strawman again! In a hole? Keep digging!

No one discounted Melinda Gates. You are the one discounting Bill.

You really are not good at this.

Misogynistic troll.

An atheist trying to make religious people look stupid? Or just a stupid religious person?

An atheist making a weird point that’s misogynistic to boot. Because s/he needs fuel for her miserable 24/7 DCUM hate binges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LMAO! Literally the biggest charity in the US is an atheist charity it's called the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Bill is an atheist.

Yes, but because he doesn't do it in the name of Atheism PP thinks it doesn't count! lol... thanks for pointing that out +100 to you.

No credit in heaven for Bill Gates!

Melinda is a devout Catholic and Bill is an agnostic. So no you don’t get credit.

You fail again. Bill is both atheist and agnostic, as are nearly all atheists.

Gates has said he's "pretty much an atheist" and that belief in a god "makes zero sense."

https://www.chron.com/culture/main/slideshow/13-surprising-atheists-130405.php


You can find many quotes from Gates on the subject of God, and he does say kind things about religious values, but make no mistake all support this: He has no religious beliefs, and is therefore 100% atheist. He also knows the claim "there is a god" is unfalsifiable, making agnosticism the rational position on knowledge of god.

Fail, your failure. Melinda is a devout Catholic—you’re completely unable to address that aspect, apparently.

The foundation is from Bill Gates fortune, and he is an Atheist, which contradicts your extremely weak attempt to salvage a stupid point, removed or not. You should surrender this point at least and just go back to having your faith, which no one here begrudges you.

You are so bad at logic. Who cares where the money came from—it’s about the two people running it, whose names are both on it, and one of them is a devout Catholic. Surrender the point yourself.

Was somebody talking above about miserable atheists who are on here 24/7 and can’t let anything go?

I don’t think they are true atheists. True atheists don’t care about religion because they don’t believe in it. These people are anti-theists, who despise religion and believe religion is harmful.

But they are in here 24/7/365. They must be exhausted and miserable and very angry all the time,

Indeed. Imagine spending all day, every day, spewing hate against a religion you claim you don’t believe.

This is what's known as "an Ad Hominem Fallacy" of logic:

This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Simply put, it is what you do when you can't make your case on the merits.

^^^ This is called Strawman argument. When someone can’t tackle the subject at hand—either Melinda Gates’ Catholicism or their own embarrassing obsessions that lead them to spend every waking moment hurling spittle on a mom’s website—they try to change the subject.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No, this is incorrect. The illustration of your ad hominem fallacy was in direct response to your use of an ad hominem fallacy. The strawman fallacy was ALSO made by you, in brining up Melinda Gates' religion when the PP was clearly talking about Bill Gates, his fortune, and the charity he founded.

So you fail twice. As suggested prior, you should just happily enjoy your faith which no one begrudges you. You are not good at this.

Omg. It’s the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Not just the Bill Gates Foundation. You’re using the straw man of a non-existent Bill Gates Foundation to zero out Melinda.

What is wrong with you? Oh right, you’re a miserable person who has to hate on religion every minute of the day and can’t stand to lose—which you did.

Ha! Doubling down with Ad Hom and Strawman again! In a hole? Keep digging!

No one discounted Melinda Gates. You are the one discounting Bill.

You really are not good at this.

Misogynistic troll.

An atheist trying to make religious people look stupid? Or just a stupid religious person?

An atheist making a weird point that’s misogynistic to boot. Because s/he needs fuel for her miserable 24/7 DCUM hate binges.

please don't stop

You are really quite entertaining, and I mean that sincerely. I get it now, you are trying to be funny. Nice job!