(June 25, 2021 at 5:09 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:Okay...so you are saying that you do not uses "atheist" as a descriptor...or part of a descriptor.(June 25, 2021 at 4:45 pm)Frank Apisa Wrote: I am not wrong...and you know it.
What about you, Nudger? Do you believe there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?
C'mon. Be truthful. Do you?
If you use "atheist" as a descriptor (or part of a descriptor) it is almost certain that you do.
Personally, in my own life, I don't. From long experience with the members of these boards, I recognize that I hold positions which are not consequences of atheism..and, when asked about religious shit, I tend to respond with a comment that assumes the ghost is true and explains why I don't give a shit if so.
So, here we are, yet again, with an oppurtinity to discuss the thing you thought atheism was...and I;m still wondering the same things I was when we began, many pages ago. Do you have anything to say about that? Can you specify exactly how I might be unreasonable for accepting a claim as knowledge which is equivalent to the claim on my own name? Stop imagining that I secretly know that you're right...that's childish. Accept that I genuinely think that you are wrong - because both of us have already agreed to the existence of facts, and that means that at least one of us is wrong, here.
From there....what....?
I think I've given you a pretty good example to discuss. Based on propositions which appear to be sound, arranged in a valid form of argumentation, I have concluded that gods do not exist. I take this to be a matter of fact. Go.
Then you are not part of what I have been talking about. If you had said that you use the descriptor "atheist"...would you have me accept that you are doing so because of a (questionable) dictionary definition...NOT because you have concluded there are no gods????
C'mon.