I've been here far longer than you Existentialist; I've seen more trolls than you can imagine, and they all share one common factor: they exist to disagree with just about anyone, spreading ridiculous beliefs and saying stupid shit in order to get a reaction. So you'll excuse me if I thought you were a troll at first, especially after threads where you attempted to get rid of adjectives by claiming that you needed multiple separate new words for different stances of atheism, and when you changed the definition of eugenics to make damn sure anyone espousing it was a Nazi.
Baseless allegations? Nope. By some standards, you've posted worse stuff here than some of the trolls we've had in the past. The only recognizable difference (and the reason you aren't banned) is because you actually believe the crap that you preach.
I do agree that a statement should be in the rules though, so I've added one, and included a bit about not diverging from dictionary definitions of words.
I never said you "constantly" redefined words; I said we were constantly berating you for it (and it was a slight hyperbole; the number of times we've had to call you on it does strike us as high). It wasn't just the meaning of atheism, it was your insistence on arguing against common definitions of types of atheism (including agnostic atheism, strong atheism, etc) which have long been accepted.
I don't care that the Hayter-Braeloch scale doesn't resolve things; it wasn't meant to. It does, however, cover most types of people when discussing their beliefs. We were aiming for a general purpose scale for simplicities sake; nothing more. You, however, are the guy who suggested that a "theistic atheist" is a valid non-contradictory stance someone could hold [Citation], and you still can't see how we may have mistaken you for a troll? Jebus...
Baseless allegations? Nope. By some standards, you've posted worse stuff here than some of the trolls we've had in the past. The only recognizable difference (and the reason you aren't banned) is because you actually believe the crap that you preach.
I do agree that a statement should be in the rules though, so I've added one, and included a bit about not diverging from dictionary definitions of words.
I never said you "constantly" redefined words; I said we were constantly berating you for it (and it was a slight hyperbole; the number of times we've had to call you on it does strike us as high). It wasn't just the meaning of atheism, it was your insistence on arguing against common definitions of types of atheism (including agnostic atheism, strong atheism, etc) which have long been accepted.
I don't care that the Hayter-Braeloch scale doesn't resolve things; it wasn't meant to. It does, however, cover most types of people when discussing their beliefs. We were aiming for a general purpose scale for simplicities sake; nothing more. You, however, are the guy who suggested that a "theistic atheist" is a valid non-contradictory stance someone could hold [Citation], and you still can't see how we may have mistaken you for a troll? Jebus...
