substantivalism
85
Yes, most philosophers.

Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic.
— Frank Apisa

If I cannot will you bury me with an Argumentum ad populum? — substantivalism

No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.

No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.

Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.

No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.

The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.

If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is?

No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.

No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.

Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.

No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.

The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.

If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is? — Frank Apisa

What is this god you speak of? If its the universe were all theists, if its a square circle were all atheists, if it's a deistic variety by definition it's unknowable so were all strong agnostics, and you haven't given a definition to me that you personally would like to discuss so i'm an ignostic right now. Remember you cannot speak for every theist on what they mean by god only you can do that for yourself and personal investigation. Also, why wouldn't I. . . I love discussing the monotheistic god of christianity and its properties such as omnipotence which is tricky to define.

You did stay true to your word to bury me beneath you Argumentum ad populum.

It does seem like a cop out. I looked up the difference between ignosticism and agnosticism and basically it follows thus:

Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.

So they both don't know.

Or:

Theist: I believe a God exists (and everything is figured out)
Atheist: I don't believe God exists (and everything is figured out)

Or in another alternative, you can be like me :snicker:

Christian Existentialist: The logic and nature of human existence is not known and quite absurd; the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in favor of Deity/God.

substantivalism
86
No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.

No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.

Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.

No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.

The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.

If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is?
— Frank Apisa

What is this god you speak of? If its the universe were all theists, if its a square circle were all atheists, if it's a deistic variety by definition it's unknowable so were all strong agnostics, and you haven't given a definition to me that you personally would like to discuss so i'm an ignostic right now. Remember you cannot speak for every theist on what they mean by god only you can do that for yourself and personal investigation. Also, why wouldn't I. . . I love discussing the monotheistic god of christianity and its properties such as omnipotence which is tricky to define.

You did stay true to your word to bury me beneath you Argumentum ad populum. — substantivalism

I didn't say god...I said gods.

I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.

Neither do you.

But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.

You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.

There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question.

I've given mine. Here it is again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.

Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing.

I didn't say god...I said gods.

I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.

Neither do you.

But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.

You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.

There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question. — Frank Apisa

You are having such a difficult time understanding ignosticism and likewise probably in trying to understand meta-philosophy (another field of study) if you ever get to it. The question "does god exist?" doesn't make any sense until you define god in a coherent manner then the discussion can continue from there. This is really simple. I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what?

I've given mine. Here it is again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.

Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing. — Frank Apisa

Stop being so upset about this "personal" attack on you or your position i've only been noting that there is another position perhaps preferable to your own. If you would define god then I could note whether i'm an atheist, theist, or agnostic (weak/strong) on it.

No, it exists and I'm not exactly sure why you think it's a relative nothing — substantivalism

How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh?

My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc.

What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers.

If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility.

I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what? — substantivalism

The obvious pitfall of Ignosticism is that it's tantamount to arguing straw men. And that is because you arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence about God's existence through an understanding of God's attributes. So you've already defined what God is... .

Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism?

I understand what you've written over and over ad nauseam, Frank. I'm asking a straight-forward question which you either can or can't answer (or will show why it's not a valid question): Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?

If so, tell me/us what that is.

Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist. — 3017amen

You have correctly identified the agnostic position, but an ignostic would never say this.

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts".

If I were to say to you "I don't know if Granwtyrt grimoooqts or doesn't grimoooqts" you would be perfectly justified in asking me WTF I'm talking about.

It would be up to me to provide you with reasonably clear definitions/usages of "Granwtyrt" and "grimoooqts" - AND - I'd also have to explain what it means for "Granwtyrt" & "grimoooqts" to appear in the same sentence.

There are gods for all occasions. Most people, past and present, disbelieve/d the vast majority of them or never heard of them; they never show anyway, and sure aren't shown.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession?

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts". — EricH

I see. Two arguments. Consider your quoted definition within the context of your participation in this thread.

1.How would you translate the thread title into incoherence?

2. What incoherence contributed to your conclusion of ignosticism?

I'll answer the questions for you; they weren't incoherent at all. No?

Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, — jorndoe

In this context, your epistemic evasion is nihilism, because there is something instead of nothing.

And as such, you have faith and belief in nihilism.

The obvious pitfall of Ignosticism is that it's tantamount to arguing straw men. And that is because you arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence about God's existence through an understanding of God's attributes. So you've already defined what God is... .

Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism? — 3017amen

I don't know what this god is that you speak of could you define what that is with clear attributes, no semantics, equivocations, contradictions, assert that you can read the minds of every other believer/religious person knowing then what they exactly mean by god, or supposedly declare your definition the one and only compared to many others. God by some is an equivocation of well known terms, a personal but rather strange conscious individual, or a role model to aspire to. To some he is separate from the universe others identical to the cosmos in some manner while, further, others declare him separate but still intervenes from time to time. Some (process philosophy) put him square in time (so to speak) as he changes along with the rest of us while others declare he is at the utmost core to his extremities forever unchanging. You cannot expect me to understand you fully when you tell me you believe in god without a definition of said concept or whether there is even really a discussion to be had for its existence.

"Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism?" I investigated what other philosophers or people had to say about it or what it was defined as then realized that it fully covered (semantically) a state of mind about the discussion when I have no definition of god (none are presented or are coherently established) to be atheistic, agnostic (strong/weak), or theistic towards. Perhaps you and the other individual i've conversed here with do not understand that god means something different to every person whether that difference is largely useless in relation to its greater ontological status or they see it in a completely different ontological category.

How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh? — Hippyhead

So our ability to tell whether something exists or not is if we could put on a human made scale? Tell me, how much does the Earth weigh? It's a trick question because for something to have weight (the normal force of an object must impress up to you against the force of gravity) the Earth would have to be pressed up against something. . . but the Earth is definitely not nothing. . . why?

My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc. — Hippyhead

There are no characteristics of non-existence because for something to be non-existent it has to lack every property/relation. Further, yes, it exists whether its an inseparable cognitive faculty (Kant if I recall), its an emergent property of material systems (relationism), or its a substance in its own right (substantivalism) which perhaps even makes up what physical objects are (super-substantivalism). For something to have mass it must possess a resistance to being accelerated but photons seem to always move at the speed of light so therefore classically do not possess this sort of mass (or rest mass). Shape or form are dependent on our cognitive faculties to assess to a certain extent while color assumes (via known sciences) that the object in question emits a sort of radiation which spacetime does not. Though, there exists gravitational lensing/gravitational redshift which (together with the new found geodesics) give light different paths/wave lengths so it does effect them. Weight is dependent on gravitational interaction and the ability of another object to resist said force with equal but opposite normal force which cannot be replicated with photons but i'm assuming you think such objects clearly exist.

What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe. — Hippyhead

Might not? If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it. Rinse and repeat having new models thrown at the wall to the point that they break then construct a new model that doesn't break that soon. At the moment a substantivalist model of spacetime or at least one that uses local energy/momentum distributions to determine the local geometry (thusly our geodesics) rather closely models reality while possessing inconsistencies on other scales or issues inherent in the mathematics that a better model would need to explain/encompass.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers. — Hippyhead

Yes, so if you tell me god exists/doesn't exists and then I ask you to give a definition. . . don't throw a temper tantrum but give me a coherent definition.

If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility. — Hippyhead

It could be or could not be but many people keep talking about god like they absolutely know what it's with various traditional/non-traditional definitions. Is it meaningless? Perhaps near the end of your life after debating this topic or conversing with various people on the existence of said entity you could make that assessment for yourself just as easily as I could when that time comes.

, I don't think you read the comment right.
The vague definitions are for epistemic evasion. Do you call those definitions nihilism?

I see. Two arguments. Consider your quoted definition within the context of your participation in this thread.

1.How would you translate the thread title into incoherence?

2. What incoherence contributed to your conclusion of ignosticism?

I'll answer the questions for you; they weren't incoherent at all. No? — 3017amen

What? You give a definition of god (a coherent one) then the sentence (does god(s) exist?) suddenly attains meaning or coherency.

It wasn't incoherence simpliciter that contributed to my TENATIVE position of ignosticism but rather that you or others perhaps fail to give a definition of god or a definition that doesn't remain coherently understandable.

Do you not understand that if you convinced a person that god does exist (given a definition) then if they started out as an agnostic (weak one) then they would honestly truthfully move over to take on the label of theist. The discussion needs grounding (well defined terms) before we can move from the ignostic to any of the other many positions you could take regarding your belief/knowledge level regarding such an entity.

Great! Then it sounds more like agnosticism because you understand certain concepts of a God, you just don't take any position on it, or do you?

Seems contradictive and paradoxical based upon your participation in this thread, because if one's ambivalence drives that decision-making, what in turn would compel a person to participate in something unknown?

It also seems like both belief systems are based on ambivalence and curiosity or wonderment yet neither of those cognitive exercises convey any real Darwinian survival advantages. And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they?

Or is it more like I'm curious so let me engage in discussion which would help make my mind up? Or let me engage in discussion but I will always be ambivalent anyway?

Does that sound right?

wasn't incoherence that contributed to my TENATIVE position of ignosticism but rather that you or others perhaps fail to give a definition of god or a definition that doesn't remain coherently understandable. — substantivalism

Okay you're changing your position then. You're saying that it's coherent it's just that you are undecided. That's fine but that's not what you said.

Do you call those definitions nihilism? — jorndoe

Sure. For an atheist it would be (assuming many default to nihilism) because there is a denial of something rather than nothing.

Great! Then it sounds more like agnosticism because you understand certain concepts of a God, you just don't take any position on it, or do you? — 3017amen

Is it a particular conception of god with predefined attributes? Then yes i'll take position(s) on it. Is it god without any predefined attributes? Then it sounds rather incoherent to me because what does it mean to say such and such exists if none of us know what it's or understand it.

Seems contradictive and paradoxical based upon your participation in this thread, because if one's ambivalence drives that decision-making, what in turn would compel a person to participate in something unknown? — 3017amen

Even agnostics can indulge in discussions of the properties of deities or whether they are coherent or not. Nothing stops them from doing that even though their real position on the issue is that such an entity is to remain unknowably non-existent/existent to them. For an ignostic then it would be a journey to meet someone through which an actual discussion can be had given a well put collection of definitions for the terms used. Other ignostics could not indulge in any discussion at all being rather militant or avoidant of such debates. . . people are people. . . I have a feeling you understand that.

It also seems like both belief systems are based on ambivalence and curiosity or wonderment yet neither of those cognitive exercises convey any real Darwinian survival advantages. And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen

Again, Evolution doesn't require everything that an organism possesses or does to be 100% beneficial only that it's able to get from birth to reproduction generally without much issue with particular factions doing that better or worse. Neutral mutations or beneficial mutations exist just as much and are consistent with Evolution as detrimental mutations are which is the same with traits or evolved behaviors.

Further, why are you advocating for barring people (ignostics and agnostics) from having these discussions?

Or is it more like I'm curious so let me engage in discussion which would help make my mind up? Or let me engage in discussion but I will always be ambivalent anyway?

Does that sound right? — 3017amen

Do you have a coherent concept of god that you will give with accompanying properties?

Okay you're changing your position then. You're saying that it's coherent it's just that you are undecided. That's fine but that's not what you said. — 3017amen

It isn't coherent to ask me "does ___ exists?" and never give me a word to substitute into there with accompanying meaning that you and I understand then such a thing to be or whether if it was inserted in the sentence it even makes coherent sense to ask the question. Undecided would be a weak agnostic position while saying that the question/word for the "entity" is ill-defined/incoherent/indeterminate then, until you give a proper definition of said enity, ignosticism is what i'll hold to which is what i've been saying this whole time. If you could point out where I flip flopped positions then please tell me and i'll change that?

I'm not saying the concept of god is always and forever will be with even a definition entirely incoherent thusly not warranting discussion. That is a cop out position but literally asking you for a coherent definition of terms is the start to every philosophical debate ever had but if the terms are not given then the what was it that was to be debated? Nobody would know and it would drift off into obscurity asking who did better in a debate that couldn't be had or what your own positions was on a debate that no one knew anything about.

And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen

I feel like this is similar to a creationist asking an atheist why they debate on religion so much despite the fact that they either know a god doesn't exist or that they do not know exists so they disbelieve. Some atheists may take this direction and leave religion alone but for others such debates hold different values to different people (I know it's hard for you to understand that people feel different things). For some they truthfully want to be convinced a god exists but constantly have their hopes dashed for others it's more a question of convincing others that said entity doesn't exist/doesn't warrant the belief in its existence. For some it's frustrating to see others believe in false things so they seek to convince them of what they see as true while others take it as a moral proclamation if they sadly identify religion to be synonymous with anti-vaxxers, creationists, cults, oppressive regimes, or homophobia. So then convincing people towards agnosticism/atheism suddenly becomes the same as taking down these sorts of issues.

There are further reasons that accompany this but you would have to actually (I know this is a tall order) perhaps ask why people indulge in these discussions.

You are having such a difficult time understanding ignosticism and likewise probably in trying to understand meta-philosophy (another field of study) if you ever get to it. The question "does god exist?" doesn't make any sense until you define god in a coherent manner then the discussion can continue from there. This is really simple. I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what? — substantivalism

I am not having a difficult time understanding ignosticism. I have majors in economics, philosophy, and religion. Unfortunately for the kind of discussion you seem determined to have, I got my degree almost 60 years ago...so lots of the particulars are no longer at my fingertips. You will understand that if, and when, you grow up.

You are essentially coming into a discussion of theories or positions on the "gods' question...and saying, "Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless."

Get out of the discussion if you think it is worthless. There are several threads in this forum where I would never contribute...or attempt to derail. I am sure that is true for many of us. Why are you here?

Okay?

Stop being so upset about this "personal" attack on you or your position i've only been noting that there is another position perhaps preferable to your own. If you would define god then I could note whether i'm an atheist, theist, or agnostic (weak/strong) on it. — substantivalism

I am not upset. I am participating in a discussion I find interesting...and wondering why someone like you is so determined to upset the discussion by calling it worthless--which you ARE doing.

I have "defined" my terms (for the purposes of the discussion)...but you still go through your nonsense.

I do not care what you want to label yourself...labels are almost worthless. That is why I talk about "my" agnosticism...rather than agnosticism. Descriptors like strong atheist, weak atheist, theist, weak agnostic, or strong agnostic will NEVER work as well as actually describing your position.

I do not care what you want to call yourself. If you want to describe your position on gods...do it. I have. YOU HAVEN'T.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa I understand what you've written over and over ad nauseam, Frank. I'm asking a straight-forward question which you either can or can't answer (or will show why it's not a valid question): Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?

If so, tell me/us what that is. — 180 Proof

There is MY AGNOSTICISM.

You know what it is. I've stated it several times.

Here it is again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

YOU tell ME if there is "an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of " it.

Then YOU tell ME what it is. And after you have, you might tell me why you would want to know something like that.

jorndoe
1k
There are gods for all occasions. Most people, past and present, disbelieve/d the vast majority of them or never heard of them; they never show anyway, and sure aren't shown.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession? — jorndoe

The obsession...the worship part of religion is the part that always turns me off.

Making a guess that gods were involved with how this thing we humans call "the universe" came into being (if it in fact came into being) is as good as any other guess about the question. But then supposing the gods have to be worshiped pops up...and disgusts me.

Any "god" that would want to be worshiped...IS NOT WORTH WORSHIP.

Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." They have invented qualifiers...and other words to make it seem more scientific and logical to blindly guess that there are no gods than to blindly guess there is at least one.

They are laughable in that, because blind guesses that there are no gods are of no better quality than blind guesses that there is at least one.

Allow me to repeat that: Blind guesses that there is no creating agency (are no creating agencies) to what we humans claim exists...are of no better quality than blind guesses that there is at least one creating agency. And if there are creating agencies...they are as much a part of nature as the creation we puny humans call "the universe and everything in it."

Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about...and that guesses about it are fun (even a delight), but not of much use.

Okay. Just checking. You're only able to repeat yourself like a dumb parrot and thereby, also like a dumb parrot, unable to explain whatever that is you're parroting. So it's reasonable, even fair, to conclude, Frank, that what you call "my agnosticism" is wholly subjective just like e.g. babytalk or glossalalia. As I've said many times: if I can't engage in informative dialectic, then I seek only to expose and not bother trying to persuade :point: Your stuffed parrot's showing, Mr. Apisa. :sweat:

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Okay. Just checking. You're only able to repeat yourself like a dumb parrot and thereby, also like a dumb parrot, unable to explain whatever that is you're parroting. So it's reasonable, even fair, to conclude, Frank, that what you call "my agnosticism" is wholly subjective just like e.g. babytalk or glossalalia. As I've said many times: if I can't engage in informative dialectic, then I seek only to expose and not bother trying to persuade :point: Your stuffed parrot's showing, Mr. Apisa. :sweat: — 180 Proof

If it makes you comfortable to speak like that of someone discussing the subjects we are discussing...go for it. I want you to feel as comfortable as you can being yourself.

Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself.

The topic of this thread is "What are your positions on the arguments for God?" You seem to be arguing that God exists - thus it is up to you to provide an explanation that makes some sense. What do you mean by "exists"?

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction.

No matter... , but for me in this context, my beliefs are many, and they trump all atheist arguments based upon all of the 'philosophical domains'. For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like.

Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself. — Frank Apisa

180 is a lot like his avatar. He gets upset easily. LOL

3017amen
2.2k
Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself.
— Frank Apisa

180 is a lot like his avatar. He gets upset easily. LOL — 3017amen

Atheists tend to lose their cool very easily...especially when discussing matters with an agnostic.

Oh well!