I can feel your anger

[CliveStaples]

Exactly where and how I've indicated it.

All you did was say "bait and switch" after I asked you how you would identify things. I don't see how trying to understand your analysis is a "bait and switch".

"People who are jews" isn't a belief, because it isn't a proposition. It's not even a sentence. I knew I could count on you to respond to your own statements if I just provided you with the opportunity.

I never said "People who are Jews" was a belief.

Easy, when people say "I did this because" whatever follows is motivational. So, when we hear "I did this because GodWillsIt™", that falls under the header of motivational.

So people don't lie? People don't ever misunderstand their own motivations?

So let's suppose someone says "I did this because X", where X is some reasoning that involves the existence of God. Isn't X theistic?

Let's suppose someone says "I did this because Y", where Y is some reasoning that doesn't involve the existence of God. Isn't Y atheistic?

Well, at least one of the three statements at the start must be entirely incorrect then huh?

Which statements? Where? The statements in the section of the post you're responding to? The statements in the belief systems that I had asked you to identify as atheist/not atheist?

You had atheism pegged maybe 4 posts ago, why ask me questions when you've already demonstrated that you know the answers? Maybe you should spend more time dissecting your own thoughts and comparing them to each other?

Because you keep changing your mind about what atheism is. First you say that any belief system that isn't theist is atheist. Then you say that {"Killing CliveStaples is good"} isn't atheist, even though it doesn't include the belief "At least one god exists", violating your previous definition.

So that's why I keep asking you. You're giving me contradictory answers.

---

Funny, I thought that was you. You seem completely clueless.
I'm going to be frank, I think you're a complete loony who hasn't the slightest idea of what the fuck he's talking about.

Do propositions seem "loony" to you?
Does set theory seem "loony" to you?
Does modeling beliefs with propositions seem "loony"? It seems normal to me--we usually say that we believe something is true, or we believe it is false, or we don't believe it; this is well-modeled by propositions.

I mean, I guess math seems pretty 'loony' to you. I mean, sets? Negation? Implements? Crazy talk!