It has been made abundantly, transparently clear that I am not welcome.
I have a thick skin, but am not completely without feelings.
Cheers George, thanks for the many interesting and challenging exchanges.
Goodbye to all. Thanks for the wonderful friends I have made, the immense amount I have learned and all the fun along the way.
Best wishes, and happy trails.
Bunyip.
The definition is not even an argument.
No, the definition os not the argument.
It forms no part of my argument whatsoever, and never did. You are barking up m the wrong tree.
The definition is not the argument. I can't be bothered repeating that again.
The argument is not based on a definition, defeating the definition of atheism whoever you are talking to applied stops you from ever even getting to the argument, let alone defeats it.
There is no point attacking a...
Sorry, mate. I have tried to communicate as best I can. I keep saying that all definitions are flawed, none are logically consistent in all contexts.
There is absolutely no point whatsoever in attacking a usage.
I don't know how else to explain this to you - but you ignore it, so there is not...
My apologies - I meant 'rejecting the context'.
All definitions are flawed, why can't you accept that? There are many different definitions - none of them are without such 'flaws'.
No it won't mate. The whole 'strong and weak' atheism idea is not very popular at all, in fact it is mostly found only in Christian apologetics, not in the atheist community. Personally I think it is a useless distinction.
I have addressed your questions in detail over and over, this is just going nowhere. I'm sorry, but that's it.
'Rejecting the concept' doesn't even make sense - let alone would it acheive anything.
I am not obliged to pick it up mate. I don't think your definition is either common, or particularly sound.
Why would I have to use the definition you insist on, even though it does not reflect my position?