iNow

I stopped reading when the openers were so obviously false

This is incorrect

Trump was here in Iowa last night all but confirming he’s absolutely running: ” "Get ready," he told a crowd in Sioux City, teasing a prospective 2024 presidential run, adding that he will "very, very, very probably do it again." The former president came to Iowa to boost Republicans like Gov. Kim Reynolds and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, and to keep the country in suspense as he repeatedly teases his entry into the presidential race. He was joined onstage by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who urged Republicans to be "the new Republican Party" led by Trump. “

All excellent points with which I tend to agree, but the answer here IMO is quite simple and straight forward. When we lack the ability to clearly form an image, we substitute features and insert concepts based on our own personal experiences and thoughts. The parts of our brain that form narratives and attempt to make sense of the stimuli we receive will fill in the gaps with fictions that eliminate feelings of uncertainty, dissonance, and all the rest.

In many ways, DeSantis can be far worse. He's got all the negative attributes of Donald Trump PLUS clear competence and abilities to execute on them (whereas Trump and crew were often a modern day version of the Keystone Cops shooting their own toes with their own proverbial guns)

Slightly, but not enough to matter IMO. And if Trump runs, DeSantis likely won’t. The Venn diagrams of their supporters is nearly 100% overlapping

Yeah, but why would a person who necromanced a thread by quoting a post I made over 2 years ago only to then spend the next 4 pages arguing with everyone and their grandmothers that ONLY his dictionary and his dictionary alone is correct… why would they ever allow that? The dispute is the point, regardless how specious. The faith being expressed here isn’t good.

I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. The No true Scotsman fallacy isn’t a valid rebuttal to my entirely valid points, nor is saying “nuh uh!!! Not according to this one dictionary!” And again with the suggestion I’m parroting memes? You’re like a gnat with this shit

Yeah but that’s just sociology!! Facepalm

Please elaborate on why you think this. FFS, dude. Srsly?

As this is not possible and is logically inconsistent, we instead describe god using an ego-centric view... We make god(s) look more like ourselves, made as a reflection of our self-image and personal hopes and desires.

My doing this would be an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because an academic or philosopher does or does not use a particular definition does not ipso facto mean my own usage is inaccurate. You lack belief in MOST of the gods ever invented by humanity. You are atheistic ABOUT THOSE GODS, even though you're not an atheist about all of them. But this has all been said. I can't force you to be correct and stop asking me to use a dictionary to support my self-evident point. Please don't. I know exactly what definition you're using and I'm reminding you there are others.

So your response is to use the No True Scotsman fallacy to suggest you're not using the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Good times. That's some recursive shit right there.

Very first sentence in my link above: The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. You're basically using the No True Scotsman fallacy as an argument against my entirely valid point. So you've said, and we disagree for reasons already articulated. There are different definitions. Again, as already supported and articulated.

How does one imagine something that cannot be imagined at all? Do you intend to say that "god" is a catch-all term for things we cannot otherwise easily describe (sort of a magnified version god-of-the-gaps)?

Being atheist ≠ Being atheistic toward specific deities. Being globally atheistic ≠ being locally atheistic.

Being atheist ≠ Being atheistic toward specific deities There's also an important distinction between "global" atheism and "local" atheism. Since I'm being challenged specifically on the philosophical precision here, maybe a more robust source will highlight my points validity more clearly to you: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Many people were, but it’s been the consensus view for quite some time now.

Hobbyist = Person with a hobby. In context of stamp collecting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of quilting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of playing bridge or shuffleboard or even day trading, I’m not a hobbyist. However, I enjoy woodworking. In that context I AM a hobbyist. One can be both a hobbyist in some contexts and not in others. But at this point, I really am using crayons to draw pictures in attempt to assist you in comprehension. It doesn’t matter how rigidly you are trying to force everyone to adhere to one single definition from one single dictionary. The meaning of words is often derived from the context and qualifiers used when using them. In this case, I’ve explained the context. The point is valid. In terms of / in context of most gods ever invented by humanity, your lack of belief in those gods makes you atheistic about those gods, even though you’re not an atheist about ALL gods.

So says you. A*Theist = NOT*Theist. In context of Odin, you’re not theist. In context of Zeus, you’re not theist. Relative to Poseidon, Apollo, Vishnu, etc… you’re not theist. You are a theist in context of your own personally preferred flavor or version of god, but you’re not theist in context of any of the others… which is precisely what I said all those many months ago (Jebus… I just looked… it was over 2 years ago) before you necro’d the thread trying to take me to task for a comment you clearly can’t properly comprehend nor validly rebut with anything more substantial than, “nuh uh!” I wouldn’t know about any of that. Memes are everywhere. I barely care about them, but you’re implying I’m here merely repeating something from a meme and that these thoughts aren’t my own. That’s a load of horseshit, much like the content of most of your posts. Delusion. Your turn.

Ergo, you are atheistic about some gods, but not others. Here. Let’s change font. Maybe that will help it penetrate and absorb: You are atheistic about some gods, but not others. There’s that trouble with reading comprehension again. Nobody called you an atheist. The comment was that people are atheistic IN CONTEXT of 99+% of the gods that have been invented and discarded across the eons by us puny humans with our tiny ape minds. Don’t worry, though. We know the word atheist makes you feel all yucky and icky inside. Nobody is saying you’re a hard atheist. Hell, nobody is even saying you’re a soft atheist, or even an agnostic theist. We’re just saying you’re atheistic about Odin and Brahma and all the others too numerous to count.

Your punch velocity needs to be: 3725.95mph https://www.boredpanda.com/physics-major-calculates-how-hard-to-slap-chicken-to-cook-it/ Now, should you ever wish to cook a steak by dropping it from a great height (instead cooking a chicken by punching or slapping it), the required height depends on the level of doneness you prefer (rare, medium, well done). https://what-if.xkcd.com/28/

For what purpose... To argue that the rest of the jug of milk is NOT soured even though the first several sips are?

Who's taking ANY studies as "absolute truth?" The preponderance of evidence rather consistently suggests that when asked to describe "god" or "gods," respondents rather consistently form said god(s) using characteristics and values they prioritize in themselves as part of their own self-image. God is nearly always ego-centric. We quite literally make god in our own image. If you have strong evidence to the contrary, then I'm completely willing to reconsider my provisional acceptance of the validity of this conclusion.