Ah here it starts. Definitions are artificial as is the upcoming
   quiz. I never said I didn't believe in any God. I never said I
   did believe in any God. Your definitions, your logic, must I go
   down this road? == Law of Excluded Middle in play here. Again
   "by definition". How far back shall we take the definition
   currently in play? Etymology? History of the concepts being
   used? May we go back to the axiom/proof issue? Aristotle?
   Perhaps Plato with his realm upon which this logical realm of
   truth-value gaming takes place to determine absoluteness? So
   much assumption. Much binary. Please continue at will. == It is
   sad when one's logic doesn't exceed boolean at LEAST into
   ternary logic but that's my bias. == Either...or. XOR. Yup.
   Total boolean. == Sure I can. Doesn't matter whether I like it
   or not, Peter. You're using a tiny popular subset of Logic. ==
   You have either, neither, both, some, at times, unknown, not
   applicable to start. == If your logic can't include the
   semantics, it's incomplete. Simple. == Nothing dodgy about it.
   Boolean logic is most common logic. Excluding the middle allows
   for absolutes. But it doesn't cover the whole territory. It
   can't. You've excluded the middle. Classical physics and logical
   positivism tried it. They didn't fail but they needed to go
   further. So from the 1920s onwards, we've had to deal with
   higher value logics, different algebras, calculi that could
   handle uncertainty better. Get with the times man. == Yes. It's
   simple. We did it in school. There's more out there than what
   you learned in school. Venn diagram fits on paper. It's an
   abstraction. It's not the reality. This game you wish me to go
   through can also fit nicely on paper with neat sharp lines. But
   it's also not reality. It's a convenient fiction that's useful
   for its purposes. But there are no sharp lines except in our
   heads. Reality is at least 3D+Time. 5 if you include curved
   space but that gets strange at that point and beyond. Point is:
   the course of logic you ask me to follow is too simple. Useful
   for navigating a flat map but not very useful when categorizing
   fuzzy sets. == Covers too much territory. Also, there's no
   'time' factor in it. Hypothetical (a lie) Example: Kenneth Udut
   at 12/29/2015 fits in the set of belief for some reason. Kenneth
   Udut at 1/3/2016 fits in the set of unbeliever. Kenneth Udut at
   12/30/2015 doesn't particularly care either way. You want to
   say, "Kenneth Udut = Unbeliever" or "Kenneth Udut = Believer"
   Now, for all past and for all time. What human is like that?
   Please. You're playing with fictions.   == There's no fish here.
   At the current moment, Peter, I'm sitting in an ugly yellow
   chair behind my computer at 8:35am typing on my laptop with
   somebody in a Philosophy forum on Facebook who is attempting to
   get a certain set of keypressed with my fingers that correspond
   perfectly to one out of two fixed responses for reasons unknown
   to me. That's what I see. = At this present moment, I'm not
   thinking about belief in God in any which way. Just formulating
   my responses based upon the input I receive from your output,
   and waiting for my coffee to finish brewing. ==   Being good
   with words gets you further than a little logic maze game. I'm
   more a fan of metaphors/analogies. I can say "I believe in God"
   just as much as I can say "I do not believe in God", depending
   on the definitions used. == My definition of belief is that the
   cognitive systems in the brain are such that the amygdala
   'pushes' its force into the prefrontal cortex. Logic is
   emotional by basis, codified through various systems and very
   effective when applied to certain issues as well as certain
   technologies. I believe that certainty is primarily emotional in
   nature. I do not believe that logic stands alone, either
   cognitively nor in a platonic realm. This is what I believe. Do
   I believe in God? All depends on how one defines God. In one of
   my definitions of God, you are a believer, Peter Stanbury. Your
   God is Binary Logic, popularized by Aristotle, refined in the
   19th century and through the 20th century. == As we are
   communicating to reach a mutual understanding, if we are using
   the same terms but mean different things, there can be no
   agreement as of yet. If I say, "Peter, you believe in God", will
   you say, "Yes, I, Peter Stanbury am a believer", will you? == If
   you cannot say, "Peter Stanbury believes in God", then I cannot
   say either "Kenneth Udut believes in God" nor can I say,
   "Kenneth Udut does not believe in God". == Even at *that*, the
   God that Peter Stanbury believes in, would not be the same as I,
   that is, if I believe in a God at all, which I might and might
   not. == I attach very few labels to myself. I am a man. I have a
   dick. Makes me a man. I am 43 years old. My birth certificate
   plus math says so. I believe those things are true. When you say
   "believer", well of COURSE I'm a believer in some things. But
   there's a Lot More that you're talking about when you say "label
   of believer" - many implications and assumptions. I am like
   Teflon when it comes to labels with baggage attached to it. I
   must know what weight I'm expected to carry first. == Agnostic
   is a label I begrudgingly carry. It's "close enough" if not
   entirely precise. == Atheist agnostic means I kneel at Dawkin's
   feet and suck his dick. Theist agnostic means I have a moment of
   doubt during my snake handling service where my young earth
   creationist sunday school is going on. Social implications to
   labels and assents. So, I am careful. ==