AFTER clarification that none of it meant any ontological commitment you AGAIN used the evasive "that's just an ad populum argument". Why the dishonesty? Why is it that you KEPT insisting I was making an Argument Ad Populum AFTER those Ontological Doors were addressed? And addressed BEFORE your last song and dance about "Argument Ad Populum"? You're merely lying at this point. You were specifically told that ontic commitments were not in those common/basic definitions. Yet you keep pretending otherwise. You're merely lying at this point. Ontological commitments were described as only coming after one gets started at the common starting points of things like First/Second/Third person and, heck, the fact that BOTH Atheists AND Christians use those starting points of Experience/Perception is one of the reasons WHY those definitions are so common ~ because we all get what the other is describing. What it MEANS down the line was specifically pointed out as just that: down the line when actual arguments come into play. That was all pointed out to you BEFORE your last run of "But See You Are Just Using Argument Ad Populum!" ~ which is why you should list all of your comments that have that phrase and all of my replies to them. Very easy to see. Hence the repeated questions to you about WHY and WHERE you claim to find an Argument Ad Populum. The Ya/Na of any ontic door had/has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that there are fairly common starting points / definitions used such as first/second/third person. You can get away with accusing me of Argument Ad Populum once for pointing that out but not several times after clarifications were given. Your own use of "argument ad populum" are (were) many and are from months ago. They are all still there. You're being evasive and dishonest. Again: Why did you repeatedly insist I made an argument ad populum? I’ll repeat the question: did I make an argument ad populum? List all the times in your comments that that phrase shows up and let’s see what’s what.

~

You say "Yes, I know that you already told it many times"

This referred to your “I don’t read”.

You say "Yes, I know that you already told it many times" but yet you KEPT insisting I was making an Argument Ad Populum. Those Ontological Doors were addressed BEFORE your last song and dance about "Argument Ad Populum". You're merely lying at this point. You were specifically told that ontic commitments were not in those common/basic definitions. Yet you keep pretending otherwise. You're merely lying at this point. Ontological commitments were described as only coming after one gets started at the common starting points of things like First/Second/Third person and, heck, the fact that BOTH Atheists AND Christians use those starting points of Experience/Perception is one of the reasons WHY those definitions are so common ~ because we all get what the other is describing. What it MEANS down the line was specifically pointed out as just that: down the line when actual arguments come into play. That was all pointed out to you BEFORE your last run of "But See You Are Just Using Argument Ad Populum!" ~ which is why you should list all of your comments that have that phrase and all of my replies to them. Very easy to see. Hence the repeated questions to you about WHY and WHERE you claim to find an Argument Ad Populum. The Ya/Na of any ontic door had/has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that there are fairly common starting points / definitions used such as first/second/third person. You can get away with accusing me of Argument Ad Populum once for pointing that out but not several times after clarifications were given. Your own use of "argument ad populum" are (were) many and are from months ago. They are all still there. You're being evasive and dishonest. Again: Why did you repeatedly insist I made an argument ad populum? I’ll repeat the question: did I make an argument ad populum? List all the times in your comments that that phrase shows up and let’s see what’s what.

~

You don't read. Yes, I know that you already told it many times.

Those Ontological Doors were addressed BEFORE your last run of "Argument Ad Populum". You're merely lying at this point. You were specifically told that ontic commitments were not in those common/basic definitions. Yet you keep pretending otherwise. You're merely lying at this point. Ontological commitments were described as only coming after one gets started at the common starting points of things like First/Second/Third person and, heck, the fact that BOTH Atheists AND Christians use those starting points of Experience/Perception is one of the reasons WHY those definitions are so common ~ because we all get what the other is describing. What it MEANS down the line was specifically pointed out as just that: down the line when actual arguments come into play. That was all pointed out to you BEFORE your last run of "But See You Are Just Using Argument Ad Populum!" ~ which is why you should list all of your comments that have that phrase and all of my replies to them. Very easy to see. Hence the repeated questions to you about WHY and WHERE you claim to find an Argument Ad Populum. The Ya/Na of any ontic door had/has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that there are fairly common starting points / definitions used such as first/second/third person. You can get away with accusing me of Argument Ad Populum once for pointing that out but not several times after clarifications were given. Your own use of "argument ad populum" are (were) many and are from months ago. They are all still there. You're being evasive and dishonest. Again: Why did you repeatedly insist I made an argument ad populum? I’ll repeat the question: did I make an argument ad populum? List all the times in your comments that that phrase shows up and let’s see what’s what.

~

See https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5836276179

You were specifically told that ontic commitments were not in those common/basic definitions. Yet you keep pretending otherwise. You're merely lying at this point. Ontological commitments were described as only coming after one gets started at the common starting points of things like First/Second/Third person and, heck, the fact that BOTH Atheists AND Christians use those starting points of Experience/Perception is one of the reasons WHY those definitions are so common ~ because we all get what the other is describing. What it MEANS down the line was specifically pointed out as just that: down the line when actual arguments come into play. That was all pointed out to you BEFORE your last run of "But See You Are Just Using Argument Ad Populum!" ~ which is why you should list all of your comments that have that phrase and all of my replies to them. Very easy to see. Hence the repeated questions to you about WHY and WHERE you claim to find an Argument Ad Populum. The Ya/Na of any ontic door had/has nothing to do with pointing out the fact that there are fairly common starting points / definitions used such as first/second/third person. You can get away with accusing me of Argument Ad Populum once for pointing that out but not several times after clarifications were given. Your own use of "argument ad populum" are (were) many and are from months ago. They are all still there. You're being evasive and dishonest. Again: Why did you repeatedly insist I made an argument ad populum? I’ll repeat the question: did I make an argument ad populum? List all the times in your comments that that phrase shows up and let’s see what’s what.

List all of the places you said you found an Argument Ad Populum and my replies to them. It's easy to do. Just search your own comments for "populum" and list your comments with my replies. https://strangenotions.com/atheists-who-want-atheism-to-be-true/#comment-5838755061