Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
What does this have to do with the discussion?
Can you, or can you not, show the "fallibility" (as declared by you) in my argument?
Or are you attempting, yet again, to evade the point?
Starting a new argument does NOT refute my previous logic.
Now, a simple question for you: how (dis)honest are you, exactly?
You have declared more than once that my logic is faulty and, so far, have done nothing more than declare without support or visible reasoning. Will you now do so?
I'm also STILL waiting for you to substantiate your remark that I have been less than truthful.
Last edited:
?
you do not seek knowledge/wisdom?
then you are here to just preach..this will get you banned.
what qualifies you to speak for God?
(education,experience,?)
where do you get this from?
"God intention is.."
"red flag statement..
that may be what he wants from you..that doesn't mean he wants that for everyone else."
"Whats the context of that?"
your assumtion that you know what Gods intentions are(without any qualifications, no less)
this is not what any religious texts say,
It is an excuse to behave just as bad as those you accuse.
God gave you the right to choose, its your responsibility to choose wisely.
as it is foretold.
when it comes to God, we MUST seek out wisdom,
IOW lean not on your own understanding, but seek out the wisdom of others
(this is in the bible..i have probs with names and numbers, so i wouldn't be able to quote which verse..i think its in proverbs)
If you wish To lean on your own knowledge, then sciforums is not the place for you.
Please answer the question so we may move foreword.
Since have had neither the courtesy nor the common decency to support any of your contentions I fail to see why I should answer questions.
Until you have substantiated (or withdrawn publicly) BOTH your contention that my logic is faulty AND the accusation of me being less than truthful I refuse to engage in any more of your dishonest evasions.
Last edited:
distraction..avoidance,
avoidance, evasion..
(wow..i keep underestimating 'projection' when trying to figure ppl out..)
Is this a 'why should i listen to you if you won't listen to me?'
or a 'listen to me first,before i will listen to you'
stupid question from a smart man..
you like things spelled out for you don't you Dyw?..
(fine line..not arguing ppl don't need to learn how to spell things out..)
wouldn't refusal to understand qualify?
or refusal to acknowledge the other persons opinion/perspective as a valid attempt to communicate difficult concepts?
do you expect everyone to communicate in the exact same way as you do?
isn't it a mark of intelligence to be able to communicate in various ways?
Disclaimer:
my focus on you Dyw is only intended to help you be more effective at where i think your strengths is/are..(teaching how to scrutinize ones own beliefs)
Huh?
All of the above are nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
No, this is a "can we please finish the ongoing discussion before starting a new one?".
Not at all. I asked HOW (dis)honest, not whether or not he's dishonest.
On the contrary, simply stating that my logic is faulty is hardly refuting that logic. Otherwise we come down to "god doesn't exist". End of discussion.
If I present a chain of reasoning how does help anyone if the response is "Your logic is wrong"[sup]1[/sup] followed by diversion or something not involved in that logic?
If someone doesn't understand that's one thing. If some one makes accusation of dishonesty then I expect them to back them up.
I expect people to be able to state their point without introducing sidetracks and non-sequiturs.
Meh. What should I say? GO BACK AND READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN!
Nah, I take your points, but don't think (as shown above) that all of them are valid.
1 And yes, I just know you're going to say "But how often do you just say "you're wrong"? I don't give that response to anything except flat declarations. If someone has taken the time to lay out their thinking then I address that thinking.
Discussions, yes, preaching, no, for preaching is not a discussion but a dogma.
I Nietzschehimself admit that all my assumptions are false and that I have misrepresented actual concepts in the course of my discussion.
Your turn.
Your turn.
Hmm
Not quite there, is it?
Or are you now claiming that your claims of refutation (of my logic) were assumptions that you had done so? That, in effect, you don't know what you're doing?
And "misrepresented actual concepts" hardly constitutes an admission that you accused me of being untruthful. Playing with semantics doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
All I see here is further evasion and dishonesty. If you can be forthright enough to claim outright that I have been "less than truthful" I fail to understand why you cannot also be forthright enough to state that you were wrong, rather than weasel-word around an apology.
Then you write it and I'll sign it. You got what you wanted... Accept or deny.
hehe..didn't read ahead before responding eh?
(but that doesn't answer why didn't you edit it when i said it didn't)
because the new one is required before understanding the old one..
how much of a liar are you? (retorical)Not at all. I asked HOW (dis)honest, not whether or not he's dishonest.
like anyone is ever going to answer that question other than ' i am not'..
i repeat..stupid question from a smart man..
you do it all the time..you are always stating 'wrong' 'supposition' etc..
why is it wrong for them to do,but right for you to do?
which is why the term 'Logic' doesn't have as much merit as you want it to.
you should be getting it about now...
you are doing onto others as you DO NOT want them to do on to you.
irregardless of how much wisdom/knowledge is in such a thing?
you just shown above that they are..
actually you have said it for me..(see your comment about 'chain of reasoning' above)
to what you perceive as flat out declarations.
there are way to many variables in that statement to argue with..
I Nietzsche himself am irrefutably wrong and a liar. I lied when I said idolicism was part of the ten commandments. I lied when I said I would post a picture of my Ding a ling. I contrived statements that included false assumptions over concepts such as "omnipotence", "nature", "omniscience", and "kamikazes".
Something you would like to add?
Something you would like to add?
Where did you say that?
Really?
When I gave the argument it was predicated on simple claimed factors.
No other "understanding" required. Then again, if it's true (that the new one IS required before understanding the old) why couldn't NH have said so, rather making it appear to be a non-sequitur? Plus, he had stated, more than once that he had already refuted my logic. :shrug:
Allow me some small digs. The guy has lied a number of times, without once acknowledging that he has done or apologising.
Ooh! You missed my footnote!!!
Huh?
How so? Given my footnote? Where have I diverted?
Again: huh? If the discussion is about A and B what is the point of introducing Z and W without showing how they are relevant? (If they are at all).
Perceptions...
Except that I don't. As elucidated.
So a bare statement, without any support at all can be taken as NOT a flat declaration?
I don't know how you read it but what I meant was: if someone claims something AND explains how they got to that conclusion then I will do them the courtesy of giving a full and reasoned reply, as opposed to a "wrong".
If no chain of thought is presented then I can't dispute (or agree with) that chain of thought, can I? All I'm left with is to agree or disagree with the claim as presented.
Sure, you lied about me being untruthful.
And do you really think you lied about idols being mentioned in the Ten Commandments?
yes. The ten commandments ceased to exist when they got smashed. Any more stalling before you answer my only question.
I fully accept your new terms.
I fully accept your new terms.
Are you saying Moses didn't destroy them? Got that one in your basement do ya??
Maybe the stones that they were written on got smashed, but didn't that "smash" the Commandments themselves any more than burning a book would destroy the words and thoughts within it.
If they (the Commandments) HAD been smashed then how come we know about them and still apply them today?