★★ We are all atheists/atheistic to ALL Gods (says simple science)

[Jesster]

Oh, and what errors do you suspect in my advertisement strategy?

Compare your posts to my picture I just linked. I thought that was clear already.

[Cyberman]

If he did, it can't have been for long. The idea of advertising is actually to sell the product.

Oh, and what errors do you suspect in my advertisement strategy?
How shall I purge such suspected errors?

Because you communicate nothing of substance and seem incapable of assessing feedback. Two essential qualities for a communications industry such as advertising.

As to your latter question, purging yourself of these errors is not possible without a healthy dose of introspection, which you have most certainly not demonstrated to anyone here.

Basically, build a bridge and get over yourself.

I don't care about your prior responses to other people. You're talking to me now. Are you capable of holding a polite conversation without resorting to cookie-cutter deepity non-answers?

Ironically, I tend to analyse prior responses, such that I may respond politely absent deepities /non-answers.

INCORRECT.

Irony only applies in this situation if any statement or question I gave can be shown to be ironic. What others may have said and how you may have judged them is irrelevant in my interaction with you, and is a form of the association fallacy mated with a red herring.

Do you want another go?

[ApeNotKillApe]

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

INCORRECT.

Irony only applies in this situation if any statement or question I gave can be shown to be ironic. What others may have said and how you may have judged them is irrelevant in my interaction with you, and is a form of the association fallacy mated with a red herring.

Do you want another go?

Yes, it is ironic, for your statement contained irony; you appeared to have accused another of 'non-answers', whence it was your expression that was non-answer bound, on the horizon of your ignorance of priorly intentionally unread posts.

In other words, your answers did not reflect that of prior posts, which you intentionally ignored. (As you prior mentioned)

Albeit, you are still yet to express the errors in non-beliefism's premise sequence.

[Cyberman]

No, my answers contained substance; read them again. Other people picked up on them. I can only draw one conclusion as to why you did not, and it isn't very flattering to you.

My answers "did not reflect prior posts", because I am not responsible for any prior fucking posts, nanobrain. Nor did I "intentionally ignore" them; I am not having someone else's conversation with you. You are displaying breathtaking dishonesty, which is a shame; it totally undermines whatever points you are trying to make. Basically, you are trying far too hard to belittle your interlocutors. One wonders why? (Now that was irony.)

When you have worked through your little condescension tantrum and feel like talking like a grown-up, I'll be here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Individuals can be logical. The species as a whole tends not to be so.

Are you done being arrogant yet?

He still hasn't learned the definition of "especially" and "may", I doubt he understands "can" either.

He seems to think that "beliefs may be logical" means "beliefs necessarily are logical" and he seems to think that "especially religious belief" means "only religious belief".

So yeah... I think he needs to program himself some English.

[Cyberman]

Therefore wherein ergo betwixt and between. Do I sound wise? Come and join my cult.

[Edwardo Piet]

Epiphenomenologicality.

I am therefore Jesus.

[I_am_not_mafia]

[It's bad enough that I had to switch from LaTeX to MS Office for work X-|

Ouch. That must have been more painful than when I had to take my journal paper and put in loads of American misspellings to fit in with APA's strict style. I had to buy a whole book just on their style of formatting. It was a relief when I made my own version to put on the website and I could correct it all again.

Anyway, too busy writing a paper to argue with PGJ.

I'm currently putting the last touches to a paper that I started writing in 2013 and started designing and coding in 2010. I have very little processing power and can only work on it in my spare time but I feel good about submitting it this Sunday night. All I had to do was download the conference's style file and re-run latex.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Individuals can be logical. The species as a whole tends not to be so.

Are you done being arrogant yet?

He still hasn't learned the definition of "especially" and "may", I doubt he understands "can" either.

He seems to think that "beliefs may be logical" means "beliefs necessarily are logical" and he seems to think that "especially religious belief" means "only religious belief".

So yeah... I think he needs to program himself some English.

(1)

Invalid.

Ironically, non-beliefism premise-2, stipulates clearly, that belief is illogical:

http://non-beliefism-info.appspot.com/no...uence.html

Prior quote of mine via PAGE 5:

Let us break it down:

(1) Belief has the probability of containing non-science/nonsense. 
(ie belief MAY contain non-science)


(2) Logic/science does not have the probability of containing non-science.
(ie logic/science MAY NOT contain non-science)

(3) ie.... scientific-evidence does not have the probability of containing non-scientific-evidence.
(ie scientific evidence MAY NOT contain non-scientific evidence)

(4) So belief is illogical.
(ie belief MAY contain non-science, where as logic/science can't contain non-science, so belief is clearly illogical)

.
.
.
Prior quote of mine via PAGE 3:

 
Non-beliefism/basis[ii]:

Belief may constitute non-science.

Logic/science in contrast, shan’t encode non-science.

…ie scientific evidence shan’t contain non-scientific-evidence.

Thereafter, it is illogical to believe.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(2)

In contrast, it is observable, that faith bound belief, is of supposedly absolute nature; ie theists supposedly believe in Gods.

At that juncture, the human race is inherently atheistic, for humanity regards events as probable, rather than true/absolute, as far as science prescribes.