|
Post by goz on Jul 3, 2019 2:47:30 GMT
goz said: [full text here]< clip >
'It is a truth universally acknowledged' that an English English dictionary has more authority than an American one. Argumentum ad populum combined with argumentum ad potentiam, what else could there be? Oh I remember now, logic. Do you remember? When people who "lack" beliefs join debates it isn't logical. Without beliefs what could they possibly join a debate with? See how stupid that is? What difference does it make that your dictionary is east of the Atlantic really? None! That was a fascinating discussion of various spellings (see full text), but not really relevant. Spelling obviously changed over time in England. Would you really want to go back to Chaucer? Spelling has nothing to do with meaning. The issue is what words mean. I am trying to develop meanings that are useful, that are found. You are trying to create meaning in a definition to disguise what has been found. It has been found that atheists join debates and you are trying to make it seem they have no beliefs when they do that, which is totally ridiculous, I don't care if you're Queen Elizabeth II. In amongst the non-sequiturs and off topic comments there was one point. bolded My rebuttal: An English English dictionary has more credibility and authority because it is English and not American.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 3, 2019 2:50:39 GMT
Who is "they"? Some subset? So I can say that when Christians hold up "God hates F---s signs," they define Christianity. Fringe position straw man. There are i) people who believe there is a god, ii) people who believe there is no god, and iii) people who lack belief. That is a reality that defies your attempts to confuse people about beliefs with your sloppy definitions. It doesn't matter what you call them, the people who join debates are either i) or ii) because the people who are iii) do not join debates. The attempt to define "atheism" as a "lack" of belief incorrectly conflates ii) and iii) in a deliberate attempt to make atheists appear more intelligent and founded in fact than art and science indicate. The people who do that are either dishonest or stupid. Which are you? The term "Christianity" is indeed problematic. People with diametrically opposed beliefs all call themselves "Christians." That is because the criteria for calling oneself a Christian are (actually criterion is) too simple. Other terms with more criteria are needed and available. This post is total bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 3, 2019 21:47:31 GMT
Argumentum ad populum combined with argumentum ad potentiam, what else could there be? Oh I remember now, logic. Do you remember? When people who "lack" beliefs join debates it isn't logical. Without beliefs what could they possibly join a debate with? See how stupid that is? What difference does it make that your dictionary is east of the Atlantic really? None! That was a fascinating discussion of various spellings (see full text), but not really relevant. Spelling obviously changed over time in England. Would you really want to go back to Chaucer? Spelling has nothing to do with meaning. The issue is what words mean. I am trying to develop meanings that are useful, that are found. You are trying to create meaning in a definition to disguise what has been found. It has been found that atheists join debates and you are trying to make it seem they have no beliefs when they do that, which is totally ridiculous, I don't care if you're Queen Elizabeth II. In amongst the non-sequiturs and off topic comments there was one point. bolded My rebuttal: An English English dictionary has more credibility and authority because it is English and not American. Ignoring my logic while providing none of your own, isn't that odd for a person who prides herself on logic?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 3, 2019 21:50:48 GMT
There are i) people who believe there is a god, ii) people who believe there is no god, and iii) people who lack belief. That is a reality that defies your attempts to confuse people about beliefs with your sloppy definitions. It doesn't matter what you call them, the people who join debates are either i) or ii) because the people who are iii) do not join debates. The attempt to define "atheism" as a "lack" of belief incorrectly conflates ii) and iii) in a deliberate attempt to make atheists appear more intelligent and founded in fact than art and science indicate. The people who do that are either dishonest or stupid. Which are you? The term "Christianity" is indeed problematic. People with diametrically opposed beliefs all call themselves "Christians." That is because the criteria for calling oneself a Christian are (actually criterion is) too simple. Other terms with more criteria are needed and available. This post is total bullshit. Some people say "Barbara Streisand" or "Bernie Sanders," either way you're all wrong about me.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 3, 2019 22:40:23 GMT
Who is "they"? Some subset? So I can say that when Christians hold up "God hates F---s signs," they define Christianity. Fringe position straw man. There are i) people who believe there is a god, ii) people who believe there is no god, and iii) people who lack belief. That is a reality that defies your attempts to confuse people about beliefs with your sloppy definitions. It doesn't matter what you call them, the people who join debates are either i) or ii) because the people who are iii) do not join debates. The attempt to define "atheism" as a "lack" of belief incorrectly conflates ii) and iii) in a deliberate attempt to make atheists appear more intelligent and founded in fact than art and science indicate. The people who do that are either dishonest or stupid. Which are you? The term "Christianity" is indeed problematic. People with diametrically opposed beliefs all call themselves "Christians." That is because the criteria for calling oneself a Christian are (actually criterion is) too simple. Other terms with more criteria are needed and available. Now, now Arlon; you know that, only just recently on this board, you said that definitions only need to be agreed in a formal setting and moreover that, in a casual setting like this, they can be arbitrary. Criticising the definitions of others where there is, apparently, no need to reach mutual agreement would seem to be illogical. It is nonsense to say that defining atheism simply as a lack of belief in god(s) conflates this lack of belief with a belief that there is no God (although two positions often accompany or follow on each other). For, as I have had cause to remind you before, one is simply not contingent on the other. Any conflation is more often in the mind of those faithful who cannot see a dividing line between the absence of credulity and the assertion of judgement. You really ought to know this by now. Really. For instance you might have noticed, during our various exchanges, that I am very sceptical about the claims of the credulous in regards to their god, and the reasons why it might be supposed to exist. Like many atheists I have, I feel reasonable doubts. I might even, yes, suspect that the anthropomorphic Creator is an illusion. It would be too strong though to say that I hold this suspicion as a 'belief'. And I do not, and would not, ever venture an assertion. In one case at least then your argument collapses. So time to move along. Moreover (an obvious point you do not seem to consider) simply taking part in a message board dispute about the existence, or not, of the deliberate supernatural by itself, whilst not having a belief in God might, duh, easily be seen from those both sceptical and credulous without either type of person needing to affirm a belief either way. i.e. unless they affirm something, all you have is a guess as to what those who just lack belief really think, well or poorly founded as it might be. In short any stupid and dishonest conflation is all your own invention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 22:50:48 GMT
Technically it's not a religion, but it sometimes gets away with being called one because it's always involved as an option when you're asked what your religion is. I also think there are certain mentalities and characteristics that a lot of atheists have in common with a lot of religious people. Such as feeling the need to share their beliefs or lack of to others, think that their belief or lack of is the correct one making them closed minded, and being judgemental towards other people who don't have the same views as them.
When it comes to technicalities it's not a religion, but sometimes it's treated like a religion to some atheists.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 13:24:21 GMT
All definitions are arbitrary, that is true. Many different definitions have practical applications for different associations and concerns, for example the term "gnostic" which has no practical use for general audiences in the modern world, can have use for members of organizations that have developed criteria for establishing who is gnostic or not. That usefulness is only for that limited group though. Several people on this board still bother with gnostic/agnostic distinctions with no idea what criteria should apply, which is nonsense. It is only the term "agnostic" which has practical use in the modern world as a convenient way of labeling those who lack belief and do not join debates. Your concern that I should not challenge definitions is totally absurd. In no way does the necessity for agreeing to definitions before a debate require all definitions to have any practical application to reality. Some do not, thus I point those out. FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clip >
I am very sceptical about the claims of the credulous in regards to their god, and the reasons why it might be supposed to exist. It makes little difference what definition of a "god" you use, yours is still a belief that it does not exist. Obviously though some definitions invite extraordinary disbelief. If for example the "credulous," as you put it, believe a god will give them a million dollars simply upon their genuine request, then I suppose I could grant you it is not much of an exercise of "belief" to assume it does not exist, evidence being what it might be. Notice however that you are winning the argument by depending on a totally ridiculous definition of a god, I'm not certain anyone granted you. Even then, you still merely believe there is no such god.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 4, 2019 21:02:17 GMT
All definitions are arbitrary, that is true. Many different definitions have practical applications for different associations and concerns, for example the term "gnostic" which has no practical use for general audiences in the modern world, can have use for members of organizations that have developed criteria for establishing who is gnostic or not. That usefulness is only for that limited group though. Several people on this board still bother with gnostic/agnostic distinctions with no idea what criteria should apply, which is nonsense. It is only the term "agnostic" which has practical use in the modern world as a convenient way of labeling those who lack belief and do not join debates. Your concern that I should not challenge definitions is totally absurd. In no way does the necessity for agreeing to definitions before a debate require all definitions to have any practical application to reality. Some do not, thus I point those out. FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clip >
I am very sceptical about the claims of the credulous in regards to their god, and the reasons why it might be supposed to exist. It makes little difference what definition of a "god" you use, yours is still a belief that it does not exist. Obviously though some definitions invite extraordinary disbelief. If for example the "credulous," as you put it, believe a god will give them a million dollars simply upon their genuine request, then I suppose I could grant you it is not much of an exercise of "belief" to assume it does not exist, evidence being what it might be. Notice however that you are winning the argument by depending on a totally ridiculous definition of a god, I'm not certain anyone granted you. Even then, you still merely believe there is no such god. LOLOLOLOL WTF has that got to do with someone's belief or lack of belief in god?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 22:37:12 GMT
All definitions are arbitrary, that is true. Many different definitions have practical applications for different associations and concerns, for example the term "gnostic" which has no practical use for general audiences in the modern world, can have use for members of organizations that have developed criteria for establishing who is gnostic or not. That usefulness is only for that limited group though. Several people on this board still bother with gnostic/agnostic distinctions with no idea what criteria should apply, which is nonsense. It is only the term "agnostic" which has practical use in the modern world as a convenient way of labeling those who lack belief and do not join debates. Your concern that I should not challenge definitions is totally absurd. In no way does the necessity for agreeing to definitions before a debate require all definitions to have any practical application to reality. Some do not, thus I point those out. It makes little difference what definition of a "god" you use, yours is still a belief that it does not exist. Obviously though some definitions invite extraordinary disbelief. If for example the "credulous," as you put it, believe a god will give them a million dollars simply upon their genuine request, then I suppose I could grant you it is not much of an exercise of "belief" to assume it does not exist, evidence being what it might be. Notice however that you are winning the argument by depending on a totally ridiculous definition of a god, I'm not certain anyone granted you. Even then, you still merely believe there is no such god. LOLOLOLOL WTF has that got to do with someone's belief or lack of belief in god? Your complete lack of understanding how language actually works continues to be a problem. It's probably more amusing to you than people who are not stupid. You can for example claim that you "lack" belief in a god who will let you fly to work every day by flapping your arms. What you have not done is distinguish yourself in any way from anyone else. Everyone in every religion, philosophy, any discipline whatever, believes (I'm sorry, but it is still a belief.) with virtually universally accepted qualification (granting here only) there is no such god. You are not special in that opinion. Terms that do not separate things into categories have no use, other than making a nuisance of yourselves. All the other definitions of god with the mere exception of a very few Christian definitions have far more credibility and there is no universally accepted position on those, you simply believe there is because of your ignorance of science. While you might think you have accomplished anything thinking up gods that could not possibly exist, you have not done anything but make a nuisance of yourselves. You are not joining a real debate, you are debating a straw man.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 4, 2019 22:43:02 GMT
Your complete lack of understanding how language actually works continues to be a problem. It's probably more amusing to you than people who are not stupid. You can for example claim that you "lack" belief in a god who will let you fly to work every day by flapping your arms. What you have not done is distinguish yourself in any way from anyone else. Everyone in every religion, philosophy, any discipline whatever, believes (I'm sorry, but it is still a belief.) with virtually universally accepted qualification (granting here only) there is no such god. You are not special in that opinion. Terms that do not separate things into categories have no use, other than making a nuisance of yourselves. All the other definitions of god with the mere exception of a very few Christian definitions have far more credibility and there is no universally accepted position on those, you simply believe there is because of your ignorance of science. While you might think you have accomplished anything thinking up gods that could not possibly exist, you have not done anything but make a nuisance of yourselves. You are not joining a real debate, you are debating a straw man. Congratulations. This post is a new high/low in WAFFLE. It is virtually unintelligible. I think that other post with 10 paragraphs and no points was slightly better, however!...the arm flapping was a nice touch though you forgot the colour green and the blind person amongst sundry other red herrings and you only used the word 'science' once!!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 22:53:27 GMT
Your complete lack of understanding how language actually works continues to be a problem. It's probably more amusing to you than people who are not stupid. You can for example claim that you "lack" belief in a god who will let you fly to work every day by flapping your arms. What you have not done is distinguish yourself in any way from anyone else. Everyone in every religion, philosophy, any discipline whatever, believes (I'm sorry, but it is still a belief.) with virtually universally accepted qualification (granting here only) there is no such god. You are not special in that opinion. Terms that do not separate things into categories have no use, other than making a nuisance of yourselves. All the other definitions of god with the mere exception of a very few Christian definitions have far more credibility and there is no universally accepted position on those, you simply believe there is because of your ignorance of science. While you might think you have accomplished anything thinking up gods that could not possibly exist, you have not done anything but make a nuisance of yourselves. You are not joining a real debate, you are debating a straw man. Congratulations. This post is a new high/low in WAFFLE. It is virtually unintelligible. I think that other post with 10 paragraphs and no points was slightly better, however!...the arm flapping was a nice touch though you forgot the colour green and the blind person amongst sundry other red herrings and you only used the word 'science' once!! Please do not forget that plenty of "science" fans belief all sorts of nonsense they cannot defend with reason. However little or much you "lack" belief in god you have plenty of belief in horse manure.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 4, 2019 22:59:28 GMT
Congratulations. This post is a new high/low in WAFFLE. It is virtually unintelligible. I think that other post with 10 paragraphs and no points was slightly better, however!...the arm flapping was a nice touch though you forgot the colour green and the blind person amongst sundry other red herrings and you only used the word 'science' once!! Please do not forget that plenty of "science" fans belief all sorts of nonsense they cannot defend with reason. However little or much you "lack" belief in god you have plenty of belief in horse manure. Ad hominem debating is the lowest of the low Arlon. Even lower than WAFFLE, of which this is a further example.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 23:02:59 GMT
Please do not forget that plenty of "science" fans belief all sorts of nonsense they cannot defend with reason. However little or much you "lack" belief in god you have plenty of belief in horse manure. Ad hominem debating is the lowest of the low Arlon. Even lower than WAFFLE, of which this is a further example. Relativity.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 5, 2019 13:26:57 GMT
Your concern that I should not challenge definitions is totally absurd. In no way does the necessity for agreeing to definitions before a debate require all definitions to have any practical application to reality. Some do not, thus I point those out. It is not that you ought not to challenge definitions, Arlon. It is just that when you claim to argue with dictionaries "and win", etc that the suspicion is that you take the process too far - and often that you use such a diversion to avoid engaging with the real points when things go badly for you here. And when you seem to waver between 'definitions have to be mutually agreed' (as you typically refuse to engage more on that basis) and 'all definitions are arbitrary' (when you feel you can just make your own up and ignore common usage as lately, when you couldn't discover traditional Christianity in the Bible) you can see how it is confusing to your many devoted readers. Assuming this applies to me personally, since in my very last reply I have made it clear that although I may have my suspicions over whether god exists or not, all I ever affirm is a lack of belief, then it is clear that either you have not read me, or are just ignoring matters. Neither do you address the issue of how one can know what another supposedly believes when it is just as possible for someone inclined to ultimately believe in your deity to only express lack of belief during dispute all the while still asking demanding and trenchant questions. Or to put it another way, exactly the same logic applies to the credulous as to the incredulous: that it is not contingent, or obligatory, on someone who merely lacks belief in god to say its likely that He exists. See how it works? Instead, as we see immediately above, you have to assume. But, then again, that has never stopped you from making sweeping statements before. If you mean to apply this observation to anyone who affirms a view about the deliberate supernatural then I would agree with since, as I said before, any affirmative statement about the transcendental is likely to be an expression of belief, as nothing can be known for sure. However this means that one can only 'know' god through faith, not fact - good enough for many of the credulous as one can see. But, once again: one can still just lack belief, hold suspicions about the nature of reality & etc. ... without necessarily having to express a judgement. And just what might be the 'evidence', ever? The chances of a god granting someone a million dollars would seem to be greater than one leg growing back at Lourdes, for instance, since many (including Xians) win the lottery. No one has their limbs grow back. In fact I'd wager it is more likely that I can pray and win the lottery than your Jesus coming back tomorrow. Again it is not clear whether you mean me specifically or just an abstract someone. If me, then you will need to remind me of the totally ridiculous definition of god I personally hold, since you appear to know what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 22:18:55 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clips >
... you seem to waver between 'definitions have to be mutually agreed' (as you typically refuse to engage more on that basis) and 'all definitions are arbitrary' (when you feel you can just make your own up and ignore common usage ... although I may have my suspicions over whether god exists or not, all I ever affirm is a lack of belief, then it is clear that either you have not read me, or are just ignoring matters. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it can be made any more clear. If you still can't understand it. you probably never will. People who join debates believe something or they doubt something. Here is the relationship between doubt and belief. If you believe it is raining then you doubt it is not raining. On the other hand if you believe it is not raining then you doubt it is. A doubt is exactly like a belief except for perspective. Similarly a "disproof" is exactly like a proof with the same rules and procedures except for a difference in perspective. A "disbelief" is typically a belief with a different of perspective. More on that presently though. A person who "joins" a debate only to ask whether anyone wants pizza is not counted here as joining the debate unless it is a debate about pizza, and the questioner might well for all we know lack any belief on the debate topic. Expressing "doubts" in a debate is entirely different and the same as expressing a belief in the opposite. I am not trying to read you, not until you learn English anyway. I might grant that you "lack" belief in things you obviously do not understand. I'm merely noting that people who join debates (if the shoe fits) have beliefs (or doubts), and people who truly lack beliefs do not join debates. The concepts are not difficult. "All definitions are arbitrary" and "some definitions are no use" are completely compatible statements. There is no waffling necessary. It might serve to consider these concepts with a different subject, for example 12carbon. Is it possible for people to "lack" belief in 12carbon? I think it is if they have never studied chemistry in their entire lives. Is it possible for a person who has studied chemistry to "lack" belief in 12carbon? I think it is no longer possible to claim a lack of belief unless the classes were completely ignored. The evidence has been presented. It requires a conscious rejection of evidence to deny that 12carbon exists. Would you agree to that much?
Notice that I have correctly acknowledged that there can be a "lack" of belief. Sometimes the term "disbelief" is used to mean a lack of belief, and I acknowledge that as well. It is important to understand that not all disbelief is a lack of belief though.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2019 22:45:35 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clips >
... you seem to waver between 'definitions have to be mutually agreed' (as you typically refuse to engage more on that basis) and 'all definitions are arbitrary' (when you feel you can just make your own up and ignore common usage ... although I may have my suspicions over whether god exists or not, all I ever affirm is a lack of belief, then it is clear that either you have not read me, or are just ignoring matters. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it can be made any more clear. If you still can't understand it. you probably never will. People who join debates believe something or they doubt something. Here is the relationship between doubt and belief. If you believe it is raining then you doubt it is not raining. On the other hand if you believe it is not raining then you doubt it is. A doubt is exactly like a belief except for perspective. Similarly a "disproof" is exactly like a proof with the same rules and procedures except for a difference in perspective. A "disbelief" is typically a belief with a different of perspective. More on that presently though. A person who "joins" a debate only to ask whether anyone wants pizza is not counted here as joining the debate unless it is a debate about pizza, and the questioner might well for all we know lack any belief on the debate topic. Expressing "doubts" in a debate is entirely different and the same as expressing a belief in the opposite. I am not trying to read you, not until you learn English anyway. I might grant that you "lack" belief in things you obviously do not understand. I'm merely noting that people who join debates (if the shoe fits) have beliefs (or doubts), and people who truly lack beliefs do not join debates. The concepts are not difficult. "All definitions are arbitrary" and "some definitions are no use" are completely compatible statements. There is no waffling necessary. It might serve to consider these concepts with a different subject, for example 12carbon. Is it possible for people to "lack" belief in 12carbon? I think it is if they have never studied chemistry in their entire lives. Is it possible for a person who has studied chemistry to "lack" belief in 12carbon? I think it is no longer possible to claim a lack of belief unless the classes were completely ignored. The evidence has been presented. It requires a conscious rejection of evidence to deny that 12carbon exists. Would you agree to that much?
Notice that I have correctly acknowledged that there can be a "lack" of belief. Sometimes the term "disbelief" is used to mean a lack of belief, and I acknowledge that as well. It is important to understand that not all disbelief is a lack of belief though. More drivel and lack of making points, however you did make one that must be rebutted. That is patently untrue. When I did debating at school, we were assigned topics and were allocated either the positive or the negative. To assert that people must have an opinion or vested interest in a topic is not always true. When it comes to religion, the theist tends to take this leap of faith NOT only for themselves butt on behalf of atheists alleging that a lack of belief is a disbelief, and that this lack of belief is an opinion. Again this is not always true.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 23:09:20 GMT
goz said: [full text here]< clip >
When I did debating at school, we were assigned topics and were allocated either the positive or the negative. To assert that people must have an opinion or vested interest in a topic is not always true. I've already covered this more than once, but here I go again. Sometimes lawyers say things on behalf of clients that the lawyers neither especially believe nor disbelieve. In that scenario they are serving as mere "translators" in a sense. They might indeed lack belief the client is innocent, but they are expressing the client's thoughts, not their own. In your debate classes you were practicing that same art. You are missing my point. If you are expressing your own thoughts in a debate then you must have a belief. It was obvious in the past on this board that people were expressing their own thoughts, beliefs, in debates and claiming to "lack" belief. If those people are all gone now, then great.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2019 23:27:39 GMT
goz said: [full text here]< clip >
When I did debating at school, we were assigned topics and were allocated either the positive or the negative. To assert that people must have an opinion or vested interest in a topic is not always true. I've already covered this more than once, but here I go again. Sometimes lawyers say things on behalf of clients that the lawyers neither especially believe nor disbelieve. In that scenario they are serving as mere "translators" in a sense. They might indeed lack belief the client is innocent, but they are expressing the client's thoughts, not their own. In your debate classes you were practicing that same art. You are missing my point. If you are expressing your own thoughts in a debate then you must have a belief. It was obvious in the past on this board that people were expressing their own thoughts, beliefs, in debates and claiming to "lack" belief. If those people are all gone now, then great. ...butt a lack of belief is not necessarily a belief. You seem to fail to get that important distinction. You said it yourself.. A lack of belief is NOT disbelief, nor an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 23:59:52 GMT
goz said: ...butt a lack of belief is not necessarily a belief. You seem to fail to get that important distinction. You said it yourself.. A lack of belief is NOT disbelief, nor an opinion. Yes, I have made the distinction several times. There are indeed people who "lack" beliefs, but they do not join debates. If you lack beliefs about pizza, then you do not join debates about pizza. If you lack beliefs about 12carbon, then you do not join debates about 12carbon. If you lack beliefs about the existence of god you do not join debates about the existence of god. When you join a debate you are expressing someone's beliefs, if perhaps not your own. I put people in categories according to outward signs whereas your criteria for putting people in categories often do not exist. There are no outward signs for establishing that a person is "gnostic" and yet you seem to think a distinction between gnostic and anything else is useful. There is no putting people into categories with your "definitions."
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2019 0:16:19 GMT
goz said: ...butt a lack of belief is not necessarily a belief. You seem to fail to get that important distinction. You said it yourself.. A lack of belief is NOT disbelief, nor an opinion. Yes, I have made the distinction several times. There are indeed people who "lack" beliefs, but they do not join debates. If you lack beliefs about pizza, then you do not join debates about pizza. If you lack beliefs about 12carbon, then you do not join debates about 12carbon. If you lack beliefs about the existence of god you do not join debates about the existence of god. When you join a debate you are expressing someone's beliefs, if perhaps not your own. I put people in categories according to outward signs whereas your criteria for putting people in categories often do not exist. There are no outward signs for establishing that a person is "gnostic" and yet you seem to think a distinction between gnostic and anything else is useful. There is no putting people into categories with your "definitions." That is total nonsense. ANYONE can join a debate. That is what we are here for! DUH! You said it yourself. I think you are confused and illogical.
|
|