If I wrote one book and you burned it. I no longer have a book.
A better question would be if you are ever going to answer post 281.
A better question would be if you are ever going to answer post 281.
Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
So you're contending that what we know as the Ten Commandments today aren't actually the ones that were written on the stone tablets? That no one memorised what was on there, or copied it.
That "question" has been replied to: I will not answer it until you do as requested.
I did what you asked. You made an addition i accepted responsibility for the addition you made. Post 289-297 Now answer the question your mind refuses to accept.
No, you didn't.
No, I didn't. But I see you've added another lie to your catalogue.
No, you didn't.
Stop making more stupid assumptions.
Repeat after me " I Dydwyddr, do not believe nature is perfect"
Provide evidence.
Provide evidence.
in the disclaimer..(you don't know how to read between the lines?)
so you were so focus on getting him to understand you,that you failed to understand him..
because your not as smart as you think you are?..
why does everything need to be spelled out for you?
it seems that word is used in a 'i don't agree with you' context here on sciforums.
he is trying..you won't acknowledge it.
you don't give them a chance..you try to keep the focus on YOUR point.
when all is said and done,this is all we have..
(see 'making decisions with limited information' a human condition..)
<edit>
Little miss can't be wrong?
do you really believe that is a productive argument??
take this from someone who knows..
you are emotionally driven.(not a bad thing by itself,acknowledgment helps)
you will deny this because it will make you feel inferior.(not to dismiss the desire to not acknowledge that i am right..IOW you will admit/not deny it just to make me wrong)
your desire to be 'right' interferes with you actually being 'right' (or more to the truth, you do not wish to feel 'wrong')
trying to convince others they are wrong, will never affect how wrong you feel..
(reverse justification? if i convince others they are wrong, that will make me feel right?)
disclaimer;
you are not always wrong.
Last edited:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
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?
God
Okay, YOU explain to me what he meant. Go ahead...
Because if the subject of discussion is teapots what help is it introducing badgers?
Trying? I listed, specifically, what I wanted apologies for: he has so far failed completely to mention either of those things.
Except that, in this case, as the posts show, I'm not wrong. Do you think deliberately adding more lies is productive?
I grant that with regard to lies/ lack of apology I am emotionally driven. What else do have here on the board except for "reputation"? If someone is accused of lying and lets it slide then either they're acknowledging it was a lie or they're indicating that they aren't bothered about being taken seriously.
"I Nietzschehimself admit that all my assumptions are false and that I have misrepresented actual concepts in the course of my discussion."
This right here does not qualify as an apology to dywyddyr. While I personally believe it is short succinct, emberassing to admit. He expected me not to apologize for the sole reason of evading a single question. Now he fails to accept my apology for the same reason. How much longer can this persist?
It's quite simple.
For one I doubt your sincerity - ALL of your assumptions are false?
For a second I asked specifically for you show where my logic had been refuted or retract that CLAIM (not assumption).
And thirdly I asked for evidence to support your ACCUSATION that I had been "less than truthful" or a retraction that ACCUSATION (nothing whatsoever about "actual concepts").
All clearly laid out in post #285.
And I see that, once again, you are making unwarranted assumptions: your post #305 is unsupported by evidence.
For one I doubt your sincerity - ALL of your assumptions are false?
For a second I asked specifically for you show where my logic had been refuted or retract that CLAIM (not assumption).
And thirdly I asked for evidence to support your ACCUSATION that I had been "less than truthful" or a retraction that ACCUSATION (nothing whatsoever about "actual concepts").
All clearly laid out in post #285.
And I see that, once again, you are making unwarranted assumptions: your post #305 is unsupported by evidence.
Yes because they follow your false logic.
I dont have any evidence for either of those, So your asking me to lie here? I retract the accusation that I deal with actual concepts. Happy?
The logic YOU have claimed to be false yet have not shown to be so, you mean?
So now you deny you accused me of being less than truthful? That you have claimed my logic has actually been refuted?
Ah, I see, you only lie on your own behalf.
You have shown my conditions and assumptions false. Therefore they are false. I do not refute this issue.
When you lie to yourself publicly, do you lie to the public?
Ah, I see, you only lie on your own behalf.
Assumption. A false one at that.
I wouldn't know. Why don't you tell me?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2830328&postcount=271You said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2829777&postcount=225You said:
And further evidence of your insincerity:
Post 313
Post 311
Or do you now also retract the claim that MY logic is faulty (since you have not yet shown, or even attempted to show, that it is so)?
Last edited:
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Yes.
This is an irrefutable fact.
Within the bounds of physics.
Here, the U S version and use of the word perfect must be used and thus a perfect state can move to a more perfect state. This allows for evolution and we are thus a part of this evolving perfection.
Candide inadvertently helps us out.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
Regards
DL
Wait you missed part of that one... "I can't follow my chain of logic when you refuse to answer questions truthfully." Which bring us back to you evading questions.
You misrepresented another point you refused to acknowledge.
"So quit lying(to yourself), your not going to hurt my feelings by saying you don't believe in omniscience. Just realize that is a belief."
No. Your logic is the only reason my mocking positions over your standpoint are incorrect. You don't think so? Bring one of them into discussion. That or evade the "Is nature perfect?" question like you have been doing for a page and a half.
So your choices are EVADE or EVADE. I wonder what you are going to choose?
Yet BOTH were accusation of me not being truthful.
Can you show, at all, anywhere, where I have been untruthful?
Yet, one more time, all you have done is CLAIM that my standpoint is incorrect. You have consistently failed to show that is so.
As noted: once you have apologised.
The only way for your assumptions to be correct is if we certify that nature is faulty. We know as an Absolute truth nature is not faulty, so the premise of your assumptions is incorrect.
Really?
And what "assumptions" have I made?