Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:52AM, steven_guy wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:46AM, JCarlin wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 5:17AM, steven_guy wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 1:52AM, JCarlin wrote:

Feb 9, 2013 -- 1:35AM, steven_guy wrote:

oh bugger off. We KNOW what atheism is and is not.

Do tell us.  And please present credentials of your pontification. 

"And please present credentials of your pontification"?

Rephrase that in the English, please. I don't speak Double-Dutch.

Please present the credentials that got you elected to be (the atheist) Pope.

I wrote, "We KNOW what atheism is and is not."

Where did I make a reference to myself?

Oh, sorry.  I had assumed that the "We" was the "Royal We" as used by Royalty and the Pope.  Thanks for clearing up to confusion. 
In any event would you, collectively, tell us.  And also present your collective credentials for being the authority on what atheism is and is not. 

Feb 9, 2013 -- 12:38AM, JCarlin wrote:

Feb 8, 2013 -- 10:05PM, Ken wrote:

How dare you tell me that the standard definition of atheism is worthless?

Lessee now.  The title of the board is Discuss Atheism.  It would seem to be a useful clarification to discuss just what it is that we are discussing.

You say atheism is one thing.  I say it is another.  Discuss.  Pontification is for Popes.

I provide definitions. I don't discuss them. And I don't discuss anything on an off-topic thread.

I can't believe this turd was left here for me to wake up to.

Mar 1, 2013 -- 4:58PM, wohali wrote:

JC:

"But all wild horses are descendants of domesticated horses that dependeded on humans for protection from predators and a reliable food source in exchange for light work."

All wild horses are not decended from domesticated horses. And they aren't extinct, you can see them at the San Diego Zoo, decendents of wild horses.

Your statement is erroronious.

Fail.

Much as I despise the argument from Wiki that is all this discussion is worth.

The wild horse (Equus ferus) is a species of the genus Equus, which includes as subspecies the domesticated horse as well as the undomesticated Tarpan and Przewalski's horse.^[2] The Tarpan became extinct in the 19th century, and Przewalski's Horse was saved from the brink of extinction and reintroduced successfully to the wild.

...

The term "wild horse" is also used colloquially to refer to free roaming herds of feral horses such as the Mustang in the United States, the Brumby in Australia, and many others. These feral horses are untamed members of the domestic horse subspecies (Equus ferus caballus), and should not be confused with the two truly "wild" horse subspecies.

Or at the very least a poll of the membership of the forum ?

Re argumentum per argumentum

Apr 20, 2013 -- 2:14PM, Ken wrote:

Apr 20, 2013 -- 2:08PM, JCarlin wrote:

Apr 20, 2013 -- 1:51PM, Ken wrote:

According to you the human failing is to live on the coasts of any ocean. Reckon in all other possible natural disasters, and the human failing becomes living anywhere at all. Nice reasoning.

It would be reasonable to live on higher ground and use the lowlands for uses that could be protected from Tsunami. 

So much for maritime travel and commerce. No seaports. And what about all the other natural disasters that might occur?

It is quite possible to construct a port facility to withstand probable weather and even tsunami disasters.  All sea level facilities and services such as rail and highway, would be designed to withstand such flooding see eg Europoort. As for other natural disasters please see the omitted part of my relevant quotes.