(December 21, 2015 at 4:08 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:(December 21, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Delicate Wrote: I understand perfectly well what the words mean.
What I reject is tactical redefinitions. Redefinitions designed for rhetorical, debating advantage, that are out of step with the rest of our established body of knowledge.
If you want to have a meaningful discussion, it would do you well to understand my point here. You can do all you want to justify your redefinitions, but as long as it is motivated by rhetorical reasons as opposed to substantive, analytic reasons, I can't take it seriously.
What don't you understand about this?
There is no god. There is no heaven. There is no hell. The Wholly Babble is one of the worst compilations of offensive bronze-age mythology to ever have been created.
You can do all you want to justify your religious stance, but there is no empirical evidence to support any of them, and you have failed, in every post, to provide any.
The only thing that you have convinced us of is that you are very good at insulting and disrespecting anyone who doesn't agree with your religious viewpoints.
How long did it take you to memorize that bit of atheist teaching, dear?
