|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 14:50:14 GMT
I never said exactly that atheists necessarily hold beliefs, what I did say is that there are people who hold a belief that there is no god and we need a term for them and that term has traditionally been "atheist." ... Others (you?) want the term "atheist" to apply to two very different sorts of people, those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief in a god. That's like wanting one term for fish and chicken. It is not reasonable. It is not practical. People get upset who wanted fish and got chicken. People get upset who wanted chicken and got fish. It is reasonable to have separate terms for chicken and fish. It is reasonable to have separate terms for people who believe there is no god and people who lack belief in a god. There ARE separate terms for "those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief in a god", and these terms have been in use for a very long time, but both of them include the word "atheist". One term is "positive atheist", and the other is "negative atheist". So, it is correct to refer to either person as an "atheist". And in the context of most discussions, simply "atheist" is sufficient. If a topic will require greater precision of terms, then making a distinction between positive and negative atheist has use. But it's usually not necessary.
The internet does not count as "in use." They are not in use here, although on the old board they were mentioned a few times, less than one percent of the time. Which is which? Good luck with that. In the context of most discussions whichever one is supposed to "lack" belief is out of place. So I guess that "atheist" in most discussions means a person who believes there is no god? Why would a person who lacks belief be in a discussion except to ask directions to the interstate? You are failing to recognize that some people who believe there is no god are pretending they "lack" belief and joining discussions in the hopes of sounding more reasonable than they really are. I suspect this will not be settled until Kitzmiller v. Dover is overturned. Then it will be obvious who believed there is no god.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 7, 2019 15:37:58 GMT
There ARE separate terms for "those who believe there is no god, and those who lack belief in a god", and these terms have been in use for a very long time, but both of them include the word "atheist". One term is "positive atheist", and the other is "negative atheist". So, it is correct to refer to either person as an "atheist". And in the context of most discussions, simply "atheist" is sufficient. If a topic will require greater precision of terms, then making a distinction between positive and negative atheist has use. But it's usually not necessary.
They are not in use here, although on the old board they were mentioned a few times, less than one percent of the time. I already told you that using such terms is usually not necessary....hence, on these boards you will find only few mentions of them. Since I listed the two terms in the same order that you described the two groups, most people could have correctly inferred which is which. I guess I failed to take into account to whom I was speaking.Even a simple and cursory checking would have shown you that those terms were in written works that predate popular internet usage. Something as basic and "first stop" as Wiki shows that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism So your comment is not simple ignorance, but willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2019 16:28:37 GMT
to address your statement, I never said exactly that atheists necessarily hold beliefs, So it was not you who said those who said, (especially apropos atheists and others taking part in debates) that ".. people who join debates ... have beliefs ... and people who truly lack beliefs do not join debate"? And yet here I am. What do I believe, Arlon? Where have I claimed there is no God? This is the main point, all the rest from you is just diversion. Or, simply following widely accepted category of Antony Flew, as I have mentioned before, we could call them 'soft' or 'negative' atheists. Like I am. Shall I send you off to look it up again? But, then again, since all definitions are arbitrary and so need not be agreed (you said), why would I pay attention to your designation of B2s? Which is why Flew's now-standard division is so useful. Here for some reason you are just repeating back to me what I have had to explain to you in the past when you held a less subtle view. But none of this explains why someone who lack a belief in a deity has to have a belief in order to take part in a discussion. Any real difficulties on this thread have arisen more from yourself who assumes that those who are lack belief 'cannot take part' in disputes without expressing a view, and the failure to answer the specific question: that, when you are straightforwardly asked to provide positive evidence for the deliberate supernatural you believe in, why would it indicate a belief on my part, either way? I have asked this question five times now. Are you still thinking? It is odd that you should say this when,just last time you said "I would not presume to guess what you (singular) believe or not. " You can see how this looks. And what it can be called. Who is 'we'? My family? The English? My chess club? The dog and I? No one talks of belief where there is evidence. You talk of beliefs a lot exactly because there is no positive evidence for the supernatural Cause, your weak efforts before notwithstanding. ( And in the case of your idea of god, where you refuse to give a definition of your own, there is nothing to work with lol Since you have told me that the cosmos is not as old as science says it is, that the modern physics has things wrong, and that earth was caused supernaturally, Arlon, which side of the coin are you? Or, after reading your latest diversion, I right in thinking you may be someone who has flipped?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2019 16:45:39 GMT
In the context of most discussions whichever one is supposed to "lack" belief is out of place. So I guess that "atheist" in most discussions means a person who believes there is no god? Why would a person who lacks belief be in a discussion except to ask directions to the interstate? This has been patiently explained to you before, Arlon. People come to discussion groups for more reason than just to have their prejudices aired. Since you have told me just recently that you "would not presume to guess what you (singular) believe or not." why suddenly do you presume to do so with anyone else who is in discussion? You are welcome to your opinion but as with many of your beliefs it cannot be proved. But even if this was the case in some instances, may I remind you again of the words of David Hume that (in his view) there is no obligation of sincerity in religious discussion, just as one can morally tell children and the insane untruths. Personally I like to give believers the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know best what they are talking about when it comes to definitions and what they consider true, no matter how odd or extraordinary. Since the Dover trial was not about the existence of God I cannot see how this will happen. Maybe this is why your much-vaunted appeal has not made much progress?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 17:52:35 GMT
Quite so, and I'm sure it's not the first time you've been ignored either. Please allow me to explain why you are being ignored. As much as you are, that is, I'm trying to help here. You should get it soon enough, you ignore things yourself rather obviously. You ignored my argument that "soft" atheists do not fit in "most" discussions. Have you not seen that issue raging on this board? One reason you are ignored is that your sources are insignificant. An internet reference used on a college paper was an automatic grade of "F" in many classes and will likely be for some time. Democracy is more of a political thing than an intellectual one. The internet lacks important filters. The main reason you are being ignored though is that your definitions are not as much help in communication as you expect. If they were any help, more people would use them. Obviously several atheists here and perhaps you too are having "debates" with people who believe there is no point to debating, or perhaps have totally blank minds. That doesn't stand out as the work of experts in communication. No, it is not the case that the difference can be left unexpressed. You might believe the difference is less significant than it is as explained in my thread " Justifiable Beliefs." Another reason that particular Wikipedia page is being ignored is that there are a plethora of terms for only two kinds of people and an insistence that one term always be used for both. Make up your minds. Another good reason you are being ignored is that far more practical definitions have served for decades. There are only three possibilities for belief in a god and three different terms, one for each, nice and tidy. You knew who was coming to debates in those days. The agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist divisions that goz still seems to recognize (perhaps also still on the internet elsewhere) might be hindering your efforts too. It's shows a lack of organization. Like a lack of organization wasn't obvious already. Then too is the inherent lack of organization in having a category with no means of telling who might be in it. How do you tell who is a "gnostic" in these times? If you can't tell, what is the point in having various terms? And how can there be a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist in the same room? Doesn't one of them have to be wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 7, 2019 17:59:07 GMT
I just thought of a new drinking game: every time Arlon uses the phrase "who join debates", take a swig.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 18:34:07 GMT
I just thought of a new drinking game: every time Arlon uses the phrase "who join debates", take a swig. No, no, use "because science."
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 18:54:32 GMT
You are here because you have beliefs, however muddled. Terms I never mentioned but you did are "deliberate supernatural" and "the transcendental." Since I never mentioned them it must have been your own beliefs about them (one way or another) that caused you to mention them. I don't know what you believe about them or why you found it salient to discuss them. It is however evident that you thought something about them before. You tell me what it was. And why do you believe I need to use "commonly accepted" notions of something so abstract as a god? Do you believe the common herd is driven by experts in the abstract?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 19:33:49 GMT
I agree and always have. People come to this virtually anonymous computer discussion board for many reasons indeed. They have an interest in movies. They have an interest in computers and using them for discussion. They have an interest in Religion or Faith or Spirituality. This is not a debate though. Those are not all reasons to attend debates. If there were a more formalized debate somewhere else no one here would attend it unless they had an interest in the topic. If it was a debate to expand the demographic of NASCAR only people interested in NASCAR would attend. If it was a debate to eliminate red wine from the menu of a famous restaurant only people unusually interested in food would attend. An interest in NASCAR by itself would not lead to anyone attending a debate about red wine. There might however be people interested in NASCAR and red wine, but attending a debate means having an interest in that topic at least. In formal debates as compared to computer chat rooms, the interests of the attendees are far more focused on the topic. People typically do not attend a debate just to see whether their friends are there, or they simply don't know what else to do with an hour. They do however attend computer discussion groups for those reasons. If you "lack" opinions on terrace farming you do not attend debates on terrace farming. However a thread on terrace farming might start here and be joined by many people with no idea what it is, and some who have no idea what it is and yet think they do. It remains true and established, if you take a side in a debate, which is not the same as opening a casual computer discussion board for giggles, then you need some beliefs else you will have nothing to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2019 21:32:58 GMT
You are here because you have beliefs, Really? Is the same Arlon who has just earlier said that "I never said exactly that atheists necessarily hold beliefs," let alone that he "would not presume to guess what you (singular) believe or not. " I think it is. But OK then: what belief do I hold in regards to the idea of an anthropomorphic, deliberate supernatural Cause existing or not? Where I have expressed it? If you do not have anything then all you are doing is guessing that I hold one at all. Oh and yes, you also said earlier, three times in fact, that you, er, "cannot guess". LOL You don't need to, since you have again lately told us again that life cannot have arisen by natural causes from a previously molten planet. Which just leaves the supernatural by way of cause. And as you say that intelligent design is evidenced on earth - at least enough you again say to plan an appeal against the Dover verdict against the teaching of the idea as science in public schools - another characteristic one can make out from your otherwise opaque definition of god is that it is deliberate. QED. The transcendental merely refers to that of the spiritual. But if your own so-far secretive definition of god excludes the spirit, I am happy to accept it. Which makes one wonder why evidence for something purely physical is so hard for you to provide. As you can see from above I used the terms not through a matter of belief of whether a deity exists, but rather from the little you have told us as a logical deductions about the nature of the god you believe in. I may have my suspicions about it and whether it might or might not exist more generally - but I do not, and have not ever expressed a belief about this. Probably since I don't know. This is something we can agree on Arlon: that you are singularly uncommon. But given that you have lately argued that the proofs of god include the supernatural creation of life, or that we remember that you are proposing to appeal a famous case which struck down the notion of creationism, er, intelligent design by offering a defence of this view or the fact that you argue that god is universally apprehended by mankind and apparently reveals itself to governments through scripture, etc it appears your definition, whatever it is finally admitted as being, is not that far off the traditional kind. In short: you can run but you cannot hide.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 7, 2019 21:37:12 GMT
The term "atheist" should not even exist. People who believe in deities are theists and people who don't believe in deities should be called just people who are not theists. It's the historical and cultural context that has "forced" the term atheists to be used. Being a theist has been considered the default position. We are having this conversation, because nowadays a lot of people including me think not believing in deities is the default position and IF you happen to believe in a deity or deities you are a theist. Just like not believing in unicorns is considered by almost all people the default position, but there are people who believe in unicorns. There is no term "non-unicornist" to describe people who do not believe in unicorns, but if we had a history of masses believing in unicorns then we probably would have that term and also similar arguments online about whether not believing in unicorns is a belief-system or not. This is an interesting viewpoint, that stands to overturn the thinking of believers/theists, were they to really think about it. In language however there are terms in words that have nuanced meanings and atheist is one of them, as you can tell by the controversial discussions above. This is why we have adjectives to use to try and give a clearer meaning. Isopop used the terms 'positive' and negative' or some use weak and strong. Myself, I think of myself as an agnostic atheist Since the OP topic is whether atheism is a religion, I think that my definition firmly clears my philosophy of becoming a religion as it lacks any clear belief merely a lack of or confusion about the subject. I guess I am just NOT the believing type, and I resent being clumped into that definition that my lack of beliefs and confusion, is actually a belief of any kind. I don't see it as such and it is my philosophical views that are the important thing in defining my world views.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 7, 2019 21:53:34 GMT
Quite so, and I'm sure it's not the first time you've been ignored either. Please allow me to explain why you are being ignored. As much as you are, that is, I'm trying to help here. You should get it soon enough, you ignore things yourself rather obviously. You ignored my argument that "soft" atheists do not fit in "most" discussions. Have you not seen that issue raging on this board? One reason you are ignored is that your sources are insignificant. An internet reference used on a college paper was an automatic grade of "F" in many classes and will likely be for some time. Democracy is more of a political thing than an intellectual one. The internet lacks important filters. The main reason you are being ignored though is that your definitions are not as much help in communication as you expect. If they were any help, more people would use them. Obviously several atheists here and perhaps you too are having "debates" with people who believe there is no point to debating, or perhaps have totally blank minds. That doesn't stand out as the work of experts in communication. No, it is not the case that the difference can be left unexpressed. You might believe the difference is less significant than it is as explained in my thread " Justifiable Beliefs." Another reason that particular Wikipedia page is being ignored is that there are a plethora of terms for only two kinds of people and an insistence that one term always be used for both. Make up your minds. Another good reason you are being ignored is that far more practical definitions have served for decades. There are only three possibilities for belief in a god and three different terms, one for each, nice and tidy. You knew who was coming to debates in those days. The agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist divisions that goz still seems to recognize (perhaps also still on the internet elsewhere) might be hindering your efforts too. It's shows a lack of organization. Like a lack of organization wasn't obvious already. Then too is the inherent lack of organization in having a category with no means of telling who might be in it. How do you tell who is a "gnostic" in these times? If you can't tell, what is the point in having various terms?
And how can there be a gnostic theist and a gnostic atheist in the same room? Doesn't one of them have to be wrong?
" DO NOT take the name of thy Goz in vain!" I may be a lenient disorganised Goz, however I try to keep my room tidy. Interesting that you use one of the arguments here used by atheists. Theists must be wrong because their 'belief' is unproven. Luckily you don't have to prove a belief. Atheists lack of belief does not require either proof or dismissal because it is personal and arbitrary. It is only theists who like to attribute more to it than is there, which all your copious words on the subject here, prove nicely. I am just not the believing kind, much preferring thought, application of logic and analysis of factsst as they become available upon which to base my opinions, philosophical and otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 7, 2019 21:58:35 GMT
I agree and always have. People come to this virtually anonymous computer discussion board for many reasons indeed. Which need not be in connection with the beliefs they do, or do not, hold. QED If only an 'interest' was the same as a 'belief', or that interest means a belief is obligatory, then you would be home and dry. But no. As I have shown it is quite possible to ask neutral questions such as "what evidence is there for the deity you follow?" without preconceptions. Since you have been unable to say otherwise despite being asked five times, I think that ought to be taken as true by now by now. But earlier it was you who called this board just that - a "casual forum" lol But the fact remains that it is quite practicable for someone with just an "interest! to take part in a discussion without necessarily holding firm beliefs (as opposed to just suspicions, say.) Not every contributor to debates is on one side or another, or agnostics would never been seen on a board like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 8, 2019 1:14:10 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clips >
[1] ... [joining discussion boards] need not be in connection with the beliefs they do, or do not, hold. QED [2] ... I have shown it is quite possible to ask neutral questions such as "what evidence is there for the deity you follow? 1) What you certainly have demonstrated is that some people get on the wrong bus and you are probably their leader. 2) That would be a "neutral question" if you were the arbiter of what is evidence or not. Who appointed you arbiter of evidence? Can you tell me? Of course not. Do you know why? It's because no one appointed you arbiter of evidence. You simply believe you are. QED
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 8, 2019 20:41:28 GMT
I have shown it is quite possible to ask neutral questions such as "what evidence is there for the deity you follow? That would be a "neutral question" if you were the arbiter of what is evidence or not. Who appointed you arbiter of evidence? Can you tell me? Of course not. Do you know why? It's because no one appointed you arbiter of evidence. You simply believe you are. QED This is a odd reply. The question I exampled clearly shows no bias, it is a bald request for something you would consider evidence, with no reference to what I may or may not suspect. Whether or not I will find it convincing does not alter that fact one jot. +++++++++++ Here's the closing statement from someone who can stay on point in regards to the main issue here: whether or not one has to have beliefs one way or another re: the existence of God to take part in a religious discussion forum. The bottom line is this: as a participant I best know what I do or don't think, or believe, while Arlon, or anyone else, can only guess - especially since I have never expressed a view. And I'm here to tell him that I only have, at best, suspicions about his claims, not beliefs. In addition agnostics are often found on religious forums, Arlon's 'rule' notwithstanding, and they do not affirm anything. Meanwhile as already noted Arlon has said, quite clearly that he "never said exactly that atheists necessarily hold beliefs", and even that he "would not presume to guess what you (singular) believe or not." But here he is, trying to read minds and attributing to others beliefs. It is a wonder that I am not called a liar. Yes, it is quite reasonable that I may have suspicions about a purported deity, but suspicions are not beliefs (E.G. one may suspect a murder suspect while not believing someone did it). Some may be discussing religion because of their beliefs, yes, but an affirmation as to whether God exists or not is not a requirement of someone who just lacks belief in God. It really is as simple as that. Time to move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 8, 2019 23:38:49 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clip >
The bottom line is this: as a participant I best know what I do or don't think, or believe, while Arlon, or anyone else, can only guess Excuse me just one moment please. One of my filters is about to break. Yes, but it remains true that certain actions and words can betray what you believe even without your awareness, especially without your awareness. ~~~~~===**===~~~~~
I would agree that it would be fair of you to say that "an atheists lacks belief in his own concept of a god." I would also agree with reservations that I have not shown evidence for a god as you have defined one. It is not clear how you define one. You have two very serious mental problems. One is that you still can't see that it is not your station to define god for anyone but yourself without their cooperation. You are incorrect in the definitions that you imagine are "common." You are especially guilty of refusing to see the truth because you have seen for yourself on this board how variously people define god. Your other serious mental problem is that you believe you can arbitrarily dismiss evidence that you don't like. Now to review what an " ad hominem" is since you will likely try to take cover there. If I addressed your faults and tried to argue that other atheists are, or that "atheism" is, wrong because you have faults, that would not logically follow. It would indeed be a "logical fallacy" as some people say. Specifically it would be the ad hominem logical fallacy. That is not at all what I am doing here though. I am not saying that other atheists are wrong because you are. I have mentioned many times that I have met atheists who are more intelligent than some Christians. I have not changed my mind. I still think they are intelligent. I just think you are not because you evidently are not. There is no flaw in logic there. There is a very good reason to point out your flaws, which are not theirs. I expect that every time I try to save atheism from its incompetent followers you will accuse me of bad logic that doesn't win arguments because you are either that stupid or enjoy pretending to be on the internet. I expect that every time I show you indisputable evidence for a god that is the center of obvious human activity you will complain that it isn't your concept of a god, or that it isn't "the" concept of god in the dictionary. I expect that every time I show you that activity informs public policy you will complain that it isn't your concept of a god, or that it isn't "the" concept of god in the dictionary. Actually both those definitions fit the dictionary definition of a god as a "central" or "supreme" concern of human activity so you lost that way too. Indeed an atheist lacks belief in his own (dull witted, artless and pedestrian) concept of a god because he has designed one so that no one can believe in it. And an atheist can imagine he lacks belief in the god of others by believing he can reject their evidence out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 9, 2019 0:11:29 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [full text here]< clip >
The bottom line is this: as a participant I best know what I do or don't think, or believe, while Arlon, or anyone else, can only guess Excuse me just one moment please. One of my filters is about to break. Yes, but it remains true that certain actions and words can betray what you believe even without your awareness, especially without your awareness. ~~~~~===**===~~~~~
I would agree that it would be fair of you to say that "an atheists lacks belief in his own concept of a god." I would also agree with reservations that I have not shown evidence for a god as you have defined one. It is not clear how you define one. You have two very serious mental problems. One is that you still can't see that it is not your station to define god for anyone but yourself without their cooperation. You are incorrect in the definitions that you imagine are "common." You are especially guilty of refusing to see the truth because you have seen for yourself on this board how variously people define god. Your other serious mental problem is that you believe you can arbitrarily dismiss evidence that you don't like. Now to review what an " ad hominem" is since you will likely try to take cover there. If I addressed your faults and tried to argue that other atheists are, or that "atheism" is, wrong because you have faults, that would not logically follow. It would indeed be a "logical fallacy" as some people say. Specifically it would be the ad hominem logical fallacy. That is not at all what I am doing here though. I am not saying that other atheists are wrong because you are. I have mentioned many times that I have met atheists who are more intelligent than some Christians. I have not changed my mind. I still think they are intelligent. I just think you are not because you evidently are not. There is no flaw in logic there. There is a very good reason to point out your flaws, which are not theirs. I expect that every time I try to save atheism from its incompetent followers you will accuse me of bad logic that doesn't win arguments because you are either that stupid or enjoy pretending to be on the internet. I expect that every time I show you indisputable evidence for a god that is the center of obvious human activity you will complain that it isn't your concept of a god, or that it isn't "the" concept of god in the dictionary. I expect that every time I show you that activity informs public policy you will complain that it isn't your concept of a god, or that it isn't "the" concept of god in the dictionary. Actually both those definitions fit the dictionary definition of a god as a "central" or "supreme" concern of human activity so you lost that way too. Indeed an atheist lacks belief in his own (dull witted, artless and pedestrian) concept of a god because he has designed one so that no one can believe in it. And an atheist can imagine he lacks belief in the god of others by believing he can reject their evidence out of hand. blah blah blah Mr Dunning Kruger! What evidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 9, 2019 19:00:19 GMT
Excuse me just one moment please. One of my filters is about to break. Yes, but it remains true that certain actions and words can betray what you believe even without your awareness, especially without your awareness. ~~~~~===**===~~~~~
I would agree that it would be fair of you to say that "an atheists lacks belief in his own concept of a god." I would also agree with reservations that I have not shown evidence for a god as you have defined one. It is not clear how you define one. You have two very serious mental problems. One is that you still can't see that it is not your station to define god for anyone but yourself without their cooperation. You are incorrect in the definitions that you imagine are "common." You are especially guilty of refusing to see the truth because you have seen for yourself on this board how variously people define god. Your other serious mental problem is that you believe you can arbitrarily dismiss evidence that you don't like. Now to review what an " ad hominem" is since you will likely try to take cover there. If I addressed your faults and tried to argue that other atheists are, or that "atheism" is, wrong because you have faults, that would not logically follow. It would indeed be a "logical fallacy" as some people say. Specifically it would be the ad hominem logical fallacy. That is not at all what I am doing here though. I am not saying that other atheists are wrong because you are. I have mentioned many times that I have met atheists who are more intelligent than some Christians. I have not changed my mind. I still think they are intelligent. I just think you are not because you evidently are not. There is no flaw in logic there. There is a very good reason to point out your flaws, which are not theirs. I expect that every time I try to save atheism from its incompetent followers you will accuse me of bad logic that doesn't win arguments because you are either that stupid or enjoy pretending to be on the internet. I expect that every time I show you indisputable evidence for a god that is the center of obvious human activity you will complain that it isn't your concept of a god, or that it isn't "the" concept of god in the dictionary. I expect that every time I show you that activity informs public policy you will complain that it isn't your concept of a god, or that it isn't "the" concept of god in the dictionary. Actually both those definitions fit the dictionary definition of a god as a "central" or "supreme" concern of human activity so you lost that way too. Indeed an atheist lacks belief in his own (dull witted, artless and pedestrian) concept of a god because he has designed one so that no one can believe in it. And an atheist can imagine he lacks belief in the god of others by believing he can reject their evidence out of hand. blah blah blah Mr Dunning Kruger! What evidence? Given that I, just recently, patiently drew a definition of the type of god Arlon most likely believes in, using his own words and opinions on the subject, his objections are nonsensical. And given that much of his evidence for the deity is apparently either that the idea of god is popular and influential, or that there are some things which science cannot yet explain so duh, it all leaves one considerably underwhelmed. Ah well.
|
|
