SearcherforKnowledge
New member
ignorance or intentionally? ....in your opinion?
To my surprise, NATS arguments seems to be equally common on virtually all "sides" of the various controversies/debates here -- but I'm not always clear on whether the user of NATS is being facetious OR simply fails to understand theological definitions and concepts OR (as one atheist told me) "theology is so inherently meaningless and ambiguous such that I can make the words mean anything I want them to mean, because my opinion is just as good as anybody else's when it comes to fantasies like idiot skydaddies."
What do you think?
To my surprise, NATS arguments seems to be equally common on virtually all "sides" of the various controversies/debates here -- but I'm not always clear on whether the user of NATS is being facetious OR simply fails to understand theological definitions and concepts OR (as one atheist told me) "theology is so inherently meaningless and ambiguous such that I can make the words mean anything I want them to mean, because my opinion is just as good as anybody else's when it comes to fantasies like idiot skydaddies."
What do you think?