AudioMonkey:


Yea, you're right.
He was the one who came under my mention that he wants to tutor me but when it was time for action, he had nothing to say.
If you followed the discussion, you'll understand better.

Anyone that follows the discussion knows exactly what I’m tutoring you on

Learn the basics first yahweh worshipper.

Maynmaynmayn:

You are the dummy just like your creator yahweh.
You are yet to say anything reasonable that’s because you are empty, you don’t know what “theism and atheism” means.

If you are not a dullard what does an atheist got to do with knowing existence of life, and if you say you know something you have to PROVE it, we are not dumb like most theists, we don’t make claims we can’t back.
And what’s even wrong in saying “I don’t know” than basking in ignorance you are feeding yourself.

I’ve tutored you on what atheism mean, almost everyone on this thread has but like a typical theist you hang on to your beliefs and rejects knowledge.

Yahweh worshipper, do you want me to expose your creator origin?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter/2016/11/29/the-power-of-saying-i-dont-know/?sh=783140951858

Now I understand when you came saying you wanted to tutor me, you were only looking for a place to cry nonstop.
My mention is open, keep crying until you're satisfied.

AudioMonkey:


Now I understand when you came saying you wanted to tutor me, you were only looking for a place to cry nonstop.
My mention is open, keep crying until you're satisfied.

You are yet to say anything reasonable since just like a typical ignorant theist.
Hope you know baal worshippers are theist like you yahweh worshippers.

AudioMonkey:

That is a big contradiction and the more you try to argue it shows why it may not be worth debating someone like you.
Initially you said, no strong/tangible atheist would assume/mean/say gods don't exist.
Later you said strong atheists assert God/gods do not exist.
I rephrased your statements so you can be less confused about your own statements.
If you don't comprehend your own context and own words, how will you compressed mine. That would be a waste a time.

===============================

You said:

I rephrased your statements

So basically you lied, and misrepresented what I originally wrote. I wonder what you think such obvious duplicity will achieve. This was the phrase used in my quote, which you highlighted:

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist."

^^^^
In this first case, you will observe that the comment is a sweeping generalization: "No Gods exists".

"No X worth his/her salt" is a turn of phrase. It seems you do not understand what it means. I was clearly making reference to an atheists' capacity as a debater. Therefore, you would be well advised to avoid rephrasing it on anyone's behalf. When you do that, and you rephrase it to say something it didn't originally say (like this time); it is a form of plagiarism/academic dishonesty; even if done on accident.

When I used "Strong" Atheists here:

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

It was me listing atheists categories, not talking about their debating capabilities. The assertion here is meant to be specific: "This specific god/God does not exist". It doesn't take a genius to decipher this fact, so it leads to me to question what truly is your motive here. If you come across statements you don't understand, instead of trying to cast aspersions on me and poison the well, trying to call my character into question -- just so you can avoid the discussion, why not just simply ask for clarification?

If you read my latest response to KnownUnknown, you will notice that I also said that atheists who engage in sweeping generalizations and make comments like "No gods exist" often get grilled (attacked) by their fellow atheists. The assertion requires a burden of proof. As the idea of a god, both existing and non-existing is unfalsifiable (given all we currently known) -- the claims are both unfounded. Unless of course you think you can support one of the positions. I certainly can't and I have never met a person capable of doing so. If that was not clear previously, MAKE IT CLEAR NOW. There was no contradiction. When I assert a god does not exist, I am being very specific. It appears you do not comprehend the subtlety of language, or of logical dilemmas.

Dream17:


===============================

You said:


So basically you lied, and misrepresented what I originally wrote. I wonder what you think such obvious duplicity will achieve. This was the phrase used in my quote, which you highlighted:

^^^^
In this first case, you will observe that the comment is a sweeping generalization: "No Gods exists".

"No X worth his/her salt" is a turn of phrase. It seems you do not understand what it means. I was clearly making reference to an atheists' capacity as a debater. Therefore, you would be well advised to avoid rephrasing it on anyone's behalf. When you do that, and you rephrase it to say something it didn't originally say (like this time); it is a form of plagiarism/academic dishonesty; even if done on accident.

When I used "Strong" Atheists here:


It was me listing atheists categories, not talking about their debating capabilities. The assertion here is meant to be specific: "This specific god/God does not exist". It doesn't take a genius to decipher this fact, so it leads to me to question what truly is your motive here. If you come across statements you don't understand, instead of trying to cast aspersions on me and poison the well, trying to call my character into question -- just so you can avoid the discussion, why not just simply ask for clarification?

If you read my latest response to KnownUnknown, you will notice that I also said that atheists who engage in sweeping generalizations and make comments like "No gods exist" often get grilled (attacked) by their fellow atheists. The assertion requires a burden of proof. As the idea of a god, both existing and non-existing is unfalsifiable (given all we currently known) -- the claims are both unfounded. Unless of course you think you can support one of the positions. I certainly can't and I have never met a person capable of doing so. If that was not clear previously, MAKE IT CLEAR NOW. There was no contradiction. When I assert a god does not exist, I am being very specific. It appears you do not comprehend the subtlety of language, or of logical dilemmas.

All you so called rookie atheists don't cease to amaze me. Can you now see the reason I've been avoiding any debate?
I only maintained my discussion with LordReed because I've known @LordReed as old member here and he's now like a veteran in the field. He is not confused. He is consistent and articulate. And you can see my discussion with him did not run into any problem.

You just made another big blunder by saying I lied. How is lying and rephrasing a statement the same?
For example, "I know him not."
Rephrased into "I don't know him."
What lie is in that? Don't they both mean same thing?

Now, kindly interpret your statements in quotes below by yourself. This time around don't hide under enormous irrelevant text or beating around the bush. Straight to the point.

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist."

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

Like I said, don't deviate or hide under unnecessary, irrelevant explanations. Go straight to the point.

All these empty theist that have nothing reasonable to say, man does not even know what “theism” mean, 3 different people have tried explaining to you but your indoctrination is too deep rooted you can’t understand..

Dumb yahweh worshipper.

Lol. How's this for beating about the bush?

AudioMonkey:


All you so called rookie atheists

Haha, let the trolling commence . That, sweetheart, is an ad hominem fallacy.

atheists don't cease to amaze me.

Thank you.

Can you now see the reason I've been avoiding any debate?

Yes, facts can present nightmares for unevidenced superstition. Why not pray to god to give you the answers to defeat the nasty heathens like me? Or you could go debate people who share your unevidenced superstition, in a soothing circle jerk of like (closed) minded people.

I only maintained my discussion with LordReed because I've known @LordReed as old member here and he's now like a veteran in the field. He is not confused. He is consistent and articulate. And you can see my discussion with him did not run into any problem.

Then why don't we invite LordReed to trail our correspondence so far and find out who's truly confused, hmm? Since you value his opinions that much. I'm familiar with LordReed and I imagine he -- and anyone reading this thread who doesn't struggle to have his brain assimilate simple concepts -- will have a grasp of English sufficient to understand what I said. The error is yours, hilariously.

You just made another big blunder by saying I lied.

Woe is me.

How is lying and rephrasing a statement the same?

When the rephrasing is a dishonest misrepresentation of the original statement? If you read my post slowly and carefully you will see I actually pointed that out for you.

For example, "I know him not."
Rephrased into "I don't know him."
What lie is in that?

This example is not a lie, it's a rather hilarious straw man fallacy, and of course since you're comparing it to your earlier lie it's also a false equivalence fallacy, So well done sweetheart, you managed to use 2 different logical fallacies in one claim. Now, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, and if you can't, why not just present the most compelling reason you think you have to believe a deity exists outside of your imagination.

Now, kindly interpret your statements in quotes below by yourself. This time around don't hide under enormous irrelevant text or beating around the bush. Straight to the point.

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist".

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

The first one is a sweeping generic claim about all deities, the second one deals with a claim about a specific deity or deities. It takes a woeful grasp of English not to understand that as well, and this explains a lot. You wouldn't be a teenager by any chance would you?

Like I said, don't deviate or hide under unnecessary, irrelevant explanations. Go straight to the point.

Talk about irony. Anyways your request has been granted. Your turn: If you are a Christian, as concisely and accurately as possible, explain why you believe a deity exists outside your imagination, I will be pointing out any unevidenced assumptions that violate Occam's razor, and any arguments that violate the principles of logic, like the common logical fallacies you have used relentlessly so far.

Or don't you have any more relevant points/arguments to make? Why are you here? Are you just here to take the piss, whine and moan about atheists, play frivolous semantic games and pussyfoot around?

AudioMonkey:


Exactly as I predicted, you successfully poured another piece crap in my mention.
You keep wasting your time thinking you can evade your blunder by hiding behind enormity of irrelevant texts. No one is asking you about all those craps you keep talking about.

What I ask you is much simple, stick to that.
Rephrase/explain in clear simple terms what you mean in those two places I quoted. That's the only thing I'm expecting from you in your next reply, nothing else. But if you can't do that, simply tell me you can't instead of wasting my time with all your endless crap like I care.

I have 3 questions for you:

1. Are you blind?

2. Are you an illiterate?

3. Is English your first language?

I know of no atheist worth his salt, that would make the general assumption, "No gods exist".

Strong Atheists/Antitheists: They assert God or gods do not exist.

The first one is a sweeping generic claim about all deities, the second one deals with a claim about a specific deity or deities. It takes a woeful grasp of English not to understand that as well, and this explains a lot. You wouldn't be a teenager by any chance would you?

^^^
This was from my most recent post. You're a very dishonest person. Your question has been answered THREE TIMES now. Read that paragraph over and over. If English is not your first language, give your phone or laptop to a reliable friend to help you translate it to your local language. Why do you see a problem? Strong atheists make this assertion and some of them aren't worth a shit. How is that a problem for you? Other atheists are very specific about which god or gods they are referencing. How is it your brain can not wrap around the concept?

Still yet to say anything reasonable!

Dream17:


Yes, there is plenty of bad evidence -- biblical stories, personal testimony, miracles. Etc… It's terrible evidence, but it is evidence of a kind.

Why do you consider any of these evidence at all? They are not evidence of anything at all talkless of being good or bad.

Dream17:

None of it holds up to critical inquiry. Good evidence is that which comports with reality.

But why subject them to critical inquiry in the first place when they are just wild claims with absolutely no evidence.
You mentioned Bible stories as “bad evidence”. Do you subject all mythologies to critical inquiry or just certain ones?

Dream17:

It can be observed, measured, tested, and independently verified. It is the same for me as it is for anyone else in the world. We can make objective claims about good evidence. It's not very difficult. Bad evidence can be easily challenged. Old stories, opinions, un-evidenced assertions, violations of logic, erroneous claims, and the like.

Evidence is evidence. Bad evidence is no evidence at all because they don’t proof or support any assertions.

Dream17:

If one believes in a god that is not subject to the rules and regular function of the world, then how did s/he notice it?[/qiote]

By being told about it.

[quote author=Dream17 post=123472238]
Is this god a simple mental construct that has no manifestation in reality?

Aren’t all gods simple mental constructs that have no manifestation in reality?

Dream17:

It is as useless as Santa or Unicorns -- a made up story. It makes no difference at all if I believe it or not.

Exactly. It shouldn’t be a question of belief or unbelief because they are obviously fabricated.

Dream17:

Now, if this god does manifest in this world, I would certainly like to hear about it. Wouldn't it be amazing to find such a god?

This sentiment is the cornerstone of faith. Some people have faith that some gods have “manifested in the world”.
How can something that’s obviously fabricated manifest anywhere in the world except in the minds of those who believe.

Dream17:

Here is a question for you though: how would you tell a God from a sufficiently advanced civilization of aliens?

That question is a nonstarter because I say confidently that gods are nonsense. Aliens that are more advanced (technologically) than us probably exist because I can fathom a more advanced alien race than humans, and the universe has more than enough material to fashion such a race.

Dream17:

I don't have the means of recognizing a god. How about you?

I don’t have to recognize a god because gods are as real as the Leprechaun sitting on my shoulder dictating what I write. Gods are characters created by people so there is no chance that one of them actually exists and that I would have to recognize it.

Dream17:

How would you recognize a god if you saw one?
How would you know it was not a highly evolved being with technology far superior to your own?

I wouldn’t call a highly evolved being with technology far superior to my own a god anyway. I would just hope the being isn’t as violent as humans and doesn’t destroy me before I can learn about it and from where it came.

Dream17:

Are you asserting that you have the ability to know what a god is? How do you know that?

Yes, I know what a god is. I know because they only exist in stories and often the result of humans anthropomorphizing the natural world. They are also superhuman characters that some people use to explain the universe or use to salve their existential dread.

Dream17:

Fine. Can you make an argument for that god? The result is the same. There is no reason to believe in a god that is self-contradictory. A god that violates the laws of logic is by definition illogical. What reason is there to believe in this god? It is the same as believing in a god that simultaneously exists and does not exist. It manifests as dry water. You are welcome to hold such an opinion but it certainly does not qualify as good evidence.

Gods don’t have to follow your rules. Have some faith!

Dream17:

God could be anything you imagine, right? No problem. What reason is there to believe in such a god? A disinterested god who is not there is no different from a god who is not there. There is no good reason to believe in such a god.

What you consider bad reason could be good reason to another.

Dream17:

And given the attributes that you mention… come on… how in the hell are you going to even notice such a being exists?

I saw the Light on the road to El Paso.

Dream17:

Again, you have merely created a story and have no means of verifying any such thing in a concrete way.

I have merely created a story. Now, apply that same sentiment to every notion of god you have ever hear of.

Dream17:

That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence ~ Hitchens' Razor

I agree. That’s why you don’t need to be an “atheist” when you can just totally dismiss the claim. Are you an atheist towards the god I created that you have been arguing against? Or will you just dismiss it as nonsense?

Dream17:

I did reference the Christian God. Did you miss that?

There is a Christian god? Where is this god?

Dream17:

Check the following passages: Psalms 33:11,

Some ancient Hebrew was praising his own culture from what I can tell. I don’t see any god making any plans. Am I supposed to consider the musings of some Hebrew as something objective.

11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,
the people he chose for his inheritance.

Dream17:

Jeremiah 29:11,

Again, some Hebrew wrote about what some Lord said, seemingly to motivate his people. Am I supposed to consider the musings of some Hebrew as something objective.

10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Dream17:

and Proverbs 3:5-6

This one sounds like the musings of some Hebrew conman.

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

“The Lord” is nothing more than a literary device.

Dream17:

No. Both God and Jesus change througout the books of the bible.

You act as of there is only one god in the Bible or that the Jesus character actually existed.

Dream17:

How is this not logically evident? Justice is necessary to society. A society without justice will fall to corruption and disorder. If all thieves were shown mercy after their thefts and forborne any punishment, the judicial system would have no power to enforce a law against stealing. One must decide who is deserving of mercy. In our own society who gets mercy from our judges, police officers, women, and some other groups? We call it unjust, but it is a system within which we live. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

Is it unjust to show mercy by granting a criminal parole?

Is it unjust to sentence a first time offender to probation while an habitual offender is sentences to community service for the same offense?

Justice: the quality of being fair and reasonable.
Mercy: compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

I don’t see why they can’t coexist!

Dream17:

Not entirely true. You are painting with a broad brush. I frequently visit places like r/atheism, and any atheist making a stupid claim there will generally be dragged across the carpet. Not just God claims by the way. You might want to check around that corner a bit and see what happens when an ignorant atheist tries to join the ranks. They get destroyed.

You write that as if r/atheism is an infallible authority. My favorite nonsensical r/atheism claim is that everyone is born an atheist as if a child knows anything at all regardless if it’s dog or god.

Dream17:

Lol. Having an idea of a god is just that: "Having an idea of a god" . Ideas do not manifest into reality just because you have them.

Exactly.

Dream17:

If that were the case, you would have just lost your head because I imagined a dark knight slicing it off. Imaginations do not qualify as evidence for anything.

Exactly. They are not “good” or “bad” evidence. They are not evidence for anything at all.

Dream17:

What universe are you living in? Everything is the set of all existent things.

I live in a 7D universe complete with leprechauns, unicorns, and sentient daffodils. Sometimes I visit this universe of yours.

Dream17:

A god that exists in no time and no space is not a part of the set of existent things. It does not qualify. It is nothing more than an imagination until you can demonstrate how it comports with reality.

Apply same to all gods including the one you are atheist about.

Dream17:

All you have said is "Ideas exist". So what? An idea of a God does not justify or bring into existence an actual god.

Yes. So there is no need to have a position of unbelief about any idea. A leprechaun is an idea just like a god is an idea.

Dream17:

I can imagine you eating a plate of shit, that does not mean it actually happened.

Any rando can say “The Lord said”, does it mean it actually happened?

This is going to be a rush response, as I'm very busy atm and possibly in the nearest future. The last two weeks have been the most freedom I've had in a long time.

AudioMonkey:

Now that you made yourself clear, that's fine but it still didn't change the fact it was contradictory in the original post.

Audiomonkey, please read this very well: It was NOT a contradiction. If you have the patience to read and the honesty to understand my point of view, I can show you why (pay special attention to the bolded and capitalized words or sentences).

Some concepts are UNFALSIFIABLE, and this includes some concepts of deities. UNFALSIFIABLE means that even if a claim, assertion or belief were false, we cannot conceive of a way to FALSIFY them. In science, these are sometimes facetiously referred to as "not even wrong", since knowing a claim is wrong teaches us something, and unfalsifiable claims teach us nothing. The word AGNOSTICISM describes such a concept of deity, and is defined as the belief that nothing in known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. I should note here that some claims and conceits of deity are FALSIFIABLE. Now I disbelieve all UNFALSIFIABLE claims, as to believe them all would involve violating the law of non-contradiction, and thus be irrational, to believe some would must involve bias and thus be closed minded. So I withhold belief from all unfalsifiable claims, and remain agnostic, as I must do. My point was that I didn't think an atheist worth his salt would make a claim to knowledge they knew they could not support or properly provide evidence for.

You could have simply admitted though that seemed contradictory but this or that was the point you wanted to make.

It did not seem contradictory, you misunderstood it, and then misrepresented it. If you would take the time to get to know me, you'll be surprised to discover that I am usually more than happy to acknowledge an error. I do note though that despite you using several logical fallacies in your arguments, you never acknowledge any of them? How do you imagine that is perceived? Also, it is quite unfortunate that you seem to have this assumption that long posts are verbose only by virtue of their length. I'd say that's a very shallow way to approach a debate. I personally love reading long posts, just as much as I love writing them.

And talking of obfuscation, you seem to have avoided my questions yet again. I asked you if you were a Christian and if so, if you could demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities. In the absence of evidence, what is the most compelling reason or argument you have for believing a deity exists outside of the human imagination?

Take your time before responding. I am a very patient reader (well... mostly ).

KnownUnknown:


Why do you consider any of these evidence at all? They are not evidence of anything at all talkless of being good or bad.



But why subject them to critical inquiry in the first place when they are just wild claims with absolutely no evidence.
You mentioned Bible stories as “bad evidence”. Do you subject all mythologies to critical inquiry or just certain ones?



Evidence is evidence. Bad evidence is no evidence at all because they don’t proof or support any assertions.

I'm quoting this post as a reminder to address it later, as I'm very busy right now IRL. I'll respond to this, hopefully in due time.

AudioMonkey:


@blasphemous, you only advanced the context into something a bit different and started dwelling on it like it was our main discussion. I mentioned it in passing, in relation to your query on hate. While you're right insult/blaspheme can be comic but it can equally indicate hate. If you insist when people hate you, the next thing they do is praise you with kind words instead of insults, then it's alright. It's not my main discussion, so I don't have to dwell on that.

@concept, you stated there are thousands concepts of god. Or maybe I should ask what you mean by that in your last reply so I don't misunderstand you.

The simple point I made in the beginning is, it's easy to deduce God. Then you replied though it may not be hard to, it's the evidence. And since then till now, all I'm driving at is that, it's not about evidence, positive deduction has always been enough in important issues of life, some people only hide under the evidence thing.
Many atheists are, not because of evidence rather because of all other reasons they're not saying. Anyone who "sincerely" seeks evidence to his initial deduction will not end up an atheist in the first place, worst case, he would end up as someone sitting on the fence.

For the 2nd time my response to you got flagged by the modbot. I dunno why since my responses do not violate any of the rules.

I will try to craft another response later.

Dream17:
This is going to be a rush response, as I'm very busy atm and possibly in the nearest future. The last two weeks have been the most freedom I've had in a long time.



Audiomonkey, please read this very well: It was NOT a contradiction. If you have the patience to read and the honesty to understand my point of view, I can show you why (pay special attention to the bolded and capitalized words or sentences).

Some concepts are UNFALSIFIABLE, and this includes some concepts of deities. UNFALSIFIABLE means that even if a claim, assertion or belief were false, we cannot conceive of a way to FALSIFY them. In science, these are sometimes facetiously referred to as "not even wrong", since knowing a claim is wrong teaches us something, and unfalsifiable claims teach us nothing. The word AGNOSTICISM describes such a concept of deity, and is defined as the belief that nothing in known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. I should note here that some claims and conceits of deity are FALSIFIABLE. Now I disbelieve all UNFALSIFIABLE claims, as to believe them all would involve violating the law of non-contradiction, and thus be irrational, to believe some would must involve bias and thus be closed minded. So I withhold belief from all unfalsifiable claims, and remain agnostic, as I must do. My point was that I didn't think an atheist worth his salt would make a claim to knowledge they knew they could not support or properly provide evidence for.



It did not seem contradictory, you misunderstood it, and then misrepresented it. If you would take the time to get to know me, you'll be surprised to discover that I am usually more than happy to acknowledge an error. I do note though that despite you using several logical fallacies in your arguments, you never acknowledge any of them? How do you imagine that is perceived? Also, it is quite unfortunate that you seem to have this assumption that long posts are verbose only by virtue of their length. I'd say that's a very shallow way to approach a debate. I personally love reading long posts, just as much as I love writing them.

And talking of obfuscation, you seem to have avoided my questions yet again. I asked you if you were a Christian and if so, if you could demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities. In the absence of evidence, what is the most compelling reason or argument you have for believing a deity exists outside of the human imagination?

Take your time before responding. I am a very patient reader (well... mostly ).

I don't need to take my time to respond to your usual garbage.
Welcome back to your default trash. I thought I already told you I'm not impressed by your inconsistent, ambiguous concoction of grammatical contraption which eventually communicates little or no substance at the end. But if you must express yourself this way, do well to also make a simple summary after each heap of balderdash.
@rush response, you have nothing to worry about, there will always be AI chatbots or the vast resources of atheist contents or wherever else you scurry to draw all the endless garbage you keep dumping in my mention.

You're not making any point. You might have made yourself clear in your last reply about what you intend those quoted contradictions to mean, yet no amount of your theories and philosophical crap can undo the contradiction in that original post. Now that I get your intended context, stop making impossible attempts to defend the initial error. Admit and move on.

@your question, we can only move forward to that when you stop wasting all the time trying to defend a trivial oversight.

LordReed:

For the 2nd time my response to you got flagged by the modbot. I dunno why since my responses do not violate any of the rules.
I will try to craft another response later.

I thought as much.
We can't blame the unintelligent bot for it's random misbehaviors, we can only blame whoever programmed it to behave that way.

Perhaps we halt the conversation for now, if it bans you for the third time, it might be much longer than expected.
Having you around is more important.
Thanks for the discussion LordReed.

Eye service, hope you’ll keep the same energy when he start busting your bubbles.

AudioMonkey:


I thought as much.
We can't blame the unintelligent bot for it's random misbehaviors, we can only blame whoever programmed it to behave that way.

Perhaps we halt the conversation for now, if it bans you for the third time, it might be much longer than expected.
Having you around is more important.
Thanks for the discussion LordReed.

Looking forward to the next time.

JustAnotherGuy:

Can you show me how to identify male dogs from among female dogs?
YES

If your biology is correct with dogs, why should it be wrong with humans?
IT’s Not.

Does majority of people on the earth define gender by biology or by social construct?
Faulty appeal to popularity. What the majority of people believe is not necessarily important at all.

Can I give myself the social construct of a 6 year old white American at the American Embassy even though my parents (biology) are black Africans?
Yes. And they will lock you away for your delusional behavior.

Did you not understand my previous post. Perhaps you sould read it again.

You won't believe that I got banned by Nairaland's bots for writing this below