What you fail to notice is that I am not the one bringing up definitions. I am responding to accusations that I am misrepresenting definitions.
Despite your feigned aversion and coondemnation, there is nothing wrong in cutting and pasting and providing links to authoritative sources. Convenience? Of course it's convenient to have authoritative sources to buttress one's argument or rebuttal of false accusations. That's the exact technique taught in argumentation classes The only difference is the convenience factor which seems to irk you for some mystical reason.
That's your interpretation and addition to that clear definition. If I believe in one God, that automatically removes me from the atheist classification. At least according dictionaries definition it does. The reference to culture is irrelevant to the issue. Which again demonstrates clearly that you don't really want to delve into the issue but prefer to deviate the subject to Radrook instead. Radrook and how Radrook got to be Radrook isn't the issue here. The issue here is[as if you didn't know] whether the agnostic view is preferable to the atheist one because the agnostic view is more reasonable while the atheist one is unscientific and illogical.
First, the commandments you call Protestant cannot be exclusively classified that way. As you should know but obviously don't, they existed thousands of years prior to Protestantism. So that's the first misrepresentation.
The second is the statement that the bible writers believed in the existence of the gods which the pagans were claiming existed, That too is another misrepresentation. Additionally, you are taking the verses completely out of biblical context.
I will not cite scripture to avoid deviating this thread into theological doctrinal debates. Suffice to say, however, that we are told in the Bible that these gods are unable to see, hear, or speak and are referred to as being no gods at all. So reference to these gods in the scripture you quote is a reference to the concept of the gods of these nations. In other words, those concepts were not to be worshiped. The Jews who were familiar with the creation account which doesn't mention the creation of such gods knew exactly what was being said
Again! I clearly explained previously that hard atheists is what I am referring to. Ignoring what I say and plowing happlily ahead anyway disrupts the dialogue-skirts the issue-is time-wasting and most importantly- annoying.
And he continues on! What plea from authority?
Are you aware that every statement you make is an insult to the intelligence of the readers who can easily see that you are making all this up? Actually, it is becoming gradually evident that you aren't interested in the real issues but just want to annoy via unfounded accusations. Possibly this activity is being fueled by the realization that the atheist position doesn't have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, why would you be hemming and hawing and frantically jawing about irrelevancies?
If you had a rebuttal, you would use it. Since you don't you choose to deviate instead. Which of course is obvious to any intelligent reader of which there are plenty on this forum regardless of the low estimate of their intelligence which your arguments seem to insinuate.
Isn't a doe a doe a female deer? : )
As previously explained, the stance I assumed falls clearly within the agnoistic definition which presupposes no creator but allows for the possibilty. The other stance is the one YOU WISH I had taken.
BTW
Atheists concede that God is a possibility. That's the most laughable and biggest steaming load of BS I have come across since I've been on the Internet. Atheists vehemently argue against God's existence and regularly call anyone who even considers the possibility of a God fools. Your are a prime example with your snide god-flying-out-of-your-fetid-arse remark.
An agnostric would take that view. But the issue is [if indeed you took time to read the question of this thread] whether saying one doesn't know is wrong. In short, whether taking the agnostic position as opposed to the dogmatic one taken by hard atheists is wrong. To which I responded by saying no. A response with which you have taken umbrage to no end.
I understand where YOU are coming from perfectly well amigo. Actually, you are projecting all your prejudices and mental narrowness on me when it is YOU who are the one demanding the things you say I demand. But, that's OK. We can disagree. What we shouldn't do, however, is falsely accuse, misrepresent, insult via insinuations and disrespectful remarks, and otherwise make pests of ourselves. It adds NOTHING to the thread, a thread you now say never should have been started. Your fear is of course understandable, but very annoying nevertheless and fortunately-very avoidable.
Last edited:
