1) 31 is plenty old enough to be held to what you said. If he had been 12 or even 18 or something, then yeah, you still change significantly after that.
2) It was only a matter or 5-6 years between him saying all the negative stuff and fully supporting Trump. It's not like he said that stuff 20...
Well, sure. Generally, there are few who can grasp nonsensical ramblings. "God as a mystery" is meaningless. "God as invention" is too vague to be helpful. Theism is one thing. Atheism is the opposite.
There is plenty of good reason not to believe him. The things he said about Trump wouldn't have changed based on Trump's presidency. Trump didn't do anything that countered the bad things Vance said about him. In fact, Trump's presidency should have solidified the criticisms Vance had of him...
Remember when you claimed you're listening, just disagreeing? Yeah, this is more evidence you're not listening. The entire point of the question is that women are so wary of men because of all those bad experiences they have with them. The fact that you still haven't grasped that basic aspect of...
But it's not. Evidence is something that leads directly to the conclusion you want. Like a person holding a smoking gun over a dead body. Sure, it's possible they didn't shoot the person, but that evidence definitely leads to the conclusion that they did.
Existence has many possible...
Not really. If your god-concept is that vague and not theistic, then believing in it doesn't necessarily make you a theist. Some people say God is love. I believe in love, but I don't think it's God, so I'm still an atheist.
You're either a theist or an atheist, not both.
You're either a theist or an atheist. You either have the belief in a theistic god, or you don't.
You asked for my definition. I was responding that the Webster's definition you posted suffices.
It does, but it goes along with lacking belief. The lack of belief is the main thing. If you also...
It is convincing evidence, as long as you look at it objectively.
Of course he has. He had to know as soon as he made that turn that he better have an answer for this question. Again, he's not just going to admit he did it to cynically gain political power. He's obviously going to make...
No, what you've been hearing is that Trump needs to lose. I'm sure there's been an occasional person here or there who said something more forceful, but that's not mainstream.
No, it's not. No one on the left (as in no politician or well-regarded pundit) has called for violence.
Thanks. I tend to believe things that are supported by clear evidence.
Cool, me too. That's why I'm pointing this out about Vance backed up by evidence.
No, not all those who want dialogue with Putin. Biden has had dialogue with him. You went ahead and picked two examples of fascists, though, so good job.
1) No, they weren't.
2) Anyone convinced by such propaganda is already gone anyway.
That Russia should be able to just invade other countries just because? Not a very good point.
Then why did you ask "where did he say that"? If you admit he doesn't have to have said it for us to be able to say it's true, then that question is pointless.
Then your claim is wrong.
It shows he did it cynically to gain power. I'm sure he's offered other explanations. I'd be surprised if he just came out and said "Yeah, I still think Trump sucks and is America's Hitler, but I want to progress my political career, so I'm sucking up to him now". Of course he won't admit that...
I mean, the answer is really going to be one or the other. Theism is a binary phenomenon.
That Webster's definition. Basically "without belief in a theistic god". Sometimes that just means you lack it, and sometimes it means you have a belief that there is no god.
It's not. But you're saying...