It is obvious though, that you do not give much thought towards your beliefs
You couldn't possibly know this. In this discussion, we haven't gotten past the definition of our interest in the matter.
What I have told you is that I have given much thought to these matters and find that I have become less manipulatable over the years. You have not asked for example, nor have I given any. Logically, how can you be so certain that I have not given much thought to these matters?
Is it because you have concluded that your beliefs are infallably correct? And thus, any deviation from those beliefs must come from one who does not think? If that is the case, then which of us is truly being "smug in their imbecilic ways"?
You seem fond of projection. As to how I am certain you've given little to no level of productive thought to your beliefs because....you still believe them, despite their idiocy. My belief, if it can even be called, is only an admission that no one knows, least of all me. If you take part in any part of chistiandumb you are by definition extremely manipulatable by default, additionally.
you still believe them, despite their idiocy.
The latter it is.
If you take part in any part of chistiandumb you are by definition extremely manipulatable by default
I doubt anything I do in my life you would consider "taking part in chistiandumb". That's part of my point. You have no idea who I am or what I believe. For someone who admits to not knowing, you sure assume a lot.
Just like you assume there is a god. Again with the projection. You have actually given me a fairly large amount of information about who you are and what your beliefs are in just our interaction. But it isn't as if you are a lurker, I have read MANY stupid things posted by you on this site. You seem to be one of the louder christards on Poal. Working from a substantial body of evidence does not an assumption make.
(post is archived)