(March 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm)Whateverist Wrote:Incorrect... I'm not preferring one definition over the other, because I am trying to force something onto your position. I do wish to represent my interlocutors accurately. It is a preference because of the reason I gave (clarity). As Neo said, if the shoe fits... wear it, if not, then I'm not talking about you. If however you want to make claims, and then fall back to a definition, to say that you don't shoulder a burden of proof; that's not going to fly! You cannot keep your claims, and retreat back to that position. Additionally, that definition while it may apply to one who is skeptical and not making a claim (yea or nay), does not necessarily fit only that category.(March 10, 2017 at 1:15 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Yes... I detect a lack of critical thinking... and critical reading as this has nothing to do with what I said.
Oh but it does. You were saying the god-does-not-exist interpretation of atheism was more informative. Well that's only important to you because you'd like to know that means we want to argue god doesn't exist.
Quote:Many of us don't care....The laziness is yours for wanting atheists to declare the information you seek for you. Our not wishing to be bothered to serve you in this way is no indication of sloth on our part. Do your own sleuthing.
It often shows (that many don't care... hence the critical thinking comment)! Don't blame me, for looking at the evidence. My opinion is going to reflect what a person posts. If it is bad, whether from apathy, or a lack of attention, the opinion isn't going to differ much from someone who is just not that bright. Don't like it, either don't post and provide evidence towards that conclusion, or perhaps give it more attention so that a different conclusion is made.
I think you are misunderstanding or misconstruing what I am saying. Once again, all I am asking is that you give reason for any claims that our made. Do you think that is unreasonable?
