The persons who pen your source material may not be.
Off-topic posts from the "Evidence that God is real" thread
- Thread starter Goldtop
- Start date
- Status
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I was specific. You are in no position to correct it.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm thinking of my favourite number between one and a million. Let's talk about my number.
What is the number?
None of your business.
OK, my superpowers tell me it's eleven so I'm going to talk about eleven.
That is wrong - you are dumb.
What is the number you wish to talk about then?
None of your business. You know nothing about my favourite number.
And so the Jan/Musika argument goes.
I have never maintained there was something specific about my authority on defining the subject (.... unlike certain contributors in threads such as these).
It must be frustrating to be constantly redirected to source material and philosophy when you want to play identity politics.
... said the crab.
If you want to discuss philosophy and ideas, it requires a certain element of fortitude beyond quips devoid of any content (eg "you sidestepped!" , with no explanation on what one was holding as the focus point, etc). If you are just looking for the shortest route to a stupid argument, just take it to your meme thread and have another session or some other solo-contribution thread.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Good. Then you have no business telling someone else that their idea is wrong or dumb.
And that, fair readers, entirely negates any past and future objections about any good or bad definitions. Since there is no authority present, everyone here is free to go forward with their own definition, and discuss it - without molestation from 'nuh-uh'ers.
///
Again&again, I am not going on&on&on with your stupid back&forth bullshit. The fact is I made a valid point which you cannot handle.
IF there is an omnipotent god which wants me to know it exists, it will tell me. Until it tells me, I have no frigging reason to believe.
Evidently, YOU have no reason to believe either.
<>
Once again, I would agree if we were talking about the interaction of two sincere parties.
///
YOU are obviously not sincere.
IF there is an omnipotent god, it is not sincere.
<>
Are these the rules?
That you can't assert the authority of anything unless you drab your signature over it like a mad artist?
My sincerity doesn't come in to it. I am not part of the two parties in your given scenario.
If you demand it only requires one sincere party (namely God) then you are just dumbing down the standard of reciprocation that governs all our interactions, great and small.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The "rule" is one of logic. Since no one here claims to have an authoritative definition, then no one can use such a non-existent authoritative definition as a counter-argument.
That does not stop you from having a personal opinion of your own of course. But that's really just one opinion versus another.
"You have a dumbed down definition of God" is not valid. Best you can say is "I like my personal (and, apparently, secret) definition better."
And I think we'd all be OK with that.
///
No. You are only sidestepping the issue. As always.
As usual, you pretend to misunderstand. I do not demand anything.
<>
/chuckle
This should be good.
Wow.
A field of knowledge with no reputable source or reference material for definitions!
Garcon! Back in that flatbed trailer full of redbull guzzling atheist slobs!
Unless of course there is a body of reference material that establishes certain opinions/definitions as more reputable than others (like, you know, the standard rules of engagement for any field of knowledge under the sun).
Dumbed down is as dumbed down does.
Once again, whatever fortitude you could muster has again evaporated and, once again, you've just retreated back to your soundbites. If you agree it requires two sincere parties, you have to now qualify how you make the grade.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Nor might be the people who penned the bible.
- Status