Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
574
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 14:
Line 14: − − :::Andy, I have to say I found [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]'s response somewhat more informative than yours. He must be as disappointed as I that you chose to delete it. − − :::It's pretty clear what the term "non-atheists" mean. There is a set of people within the population who (I'm fairly sure you'd agree) are atheists. There must therefore be a set of people not in the set "atheists" (technically this is the complement of the set "atheists"). You may have a better name, but I think most people will understand that the term "non-atheists" applies to this latter set. It's fairly basic mathematics. − − :::What confuses me more is that having asserted that the term "non-atheists" is meaningless, you then go on to use the term as the basis for further assertions. If "non-atheists" is a meaningless term then "non-atheists are an aberration" is a meaningless statement. I'm sure you're not in the habit of making meaningless statements, but in this case is does seem indicative of a somewhat incoherent chain of thought. -- [[User:Freyja|Freyja]] 07:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)
→Freyja: Of all the place to pick a fight with Andy, please don't pick my talk page.
:For starters, "non-atheists" is a meaningless term. Moreover, "non-atheists" are aberrations rather than the norm with respect to what constitutes science education. They are simply not representative of anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 7 June 2011 (EDT)
:For starters, "non-atheists" is a meaningless term. Moreover, "non-atheists" are aberrations rather than the norm with respect to what constitutes science education. They are simply not representative of anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 7 June 2011 (EDT)