You don't have to find it for me. I already told you where and who posted the comment. If you would rather whine for hours/pages than read something in minutes/paragraphs, that's just your intellectual sloth in action.
Last edited:
Prove that I am not God
- Thread starter Capracus
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Indeed.The cute part is that Capracus does not need to prove anything he says......
Capracus is as viable a contestant for God as anything else that's come up in this forum.
And I pointed out that Baldeee was right and you were wrong.
OMG
Obviously you have forgotten what got you started on this whole context whinge.
It's one thing to demand context that one can easily get from reading subsequent posts.
It's quite something else to demand that ones opponent repeat one's own arguments because one is too twisted up, burnt out or dull headed to recall them.
Sounds like its past your bedtime.
Last edited:
The one who is whinging about context is you. If there is context that makes your wrongness right, roll it out.
Perhaps the first aspect of such a discussion would involve you pointing out, specifically, how Baldee is right and, specifically, how I am wrong.
The only catch being that in order to do that, you would have to read stuff (stuff that both Baldee and myself posted) as opposed to pretending you understand topics under discussion between others and subsequently seasoning a word salad with vitriol.
Last edited:
The post of yours to which I responded quoted Baldeee as saying there is difference between knowledge and claims of knowledge. Your point seemed to be that he was wrong. I said that he was right.
Not at all. I pointed out that what I quoted from you was wrong. On the face of it, it is wrong. If you think there's context that makes it right, the onus is entirely on you to point out that context specifically. If you could do that, you would/should have done it long ago instead of insisting that I do it for you. If you can do it, go ahead and do it now.
And then you lost it all by trying to justify an opinion of something made in response to Baldee, while simultaneously admitting you didn't know what Baldee said.
I suggested that in order to avoid appearing silly, you should perhaps try reading it.
You said there is no need.
Swish.
Last edited:
Aren’t we the Godlike pretender. Someone who professes to know the nature of unknowable things, like the actual qualities of a god they can’t perceive, or a person they have little personal knowledge of.
It’s you that sees God’s perfect creations as profane. I’m proud of my shit throwing zoo monkeys.
Most participants in these religion threads have some general knowledge of these topics, to conclude that haven’t been investigated because they weren’t found convincing is ridiculous.
Everything you’ve presented to defend your position has been considered and logically rejected.
Obviously it paves the way. If you have the capacity to adequately assume a prescribed role, you can appear legitimate. Those are the cards you dealt me with an omnimax God, where I can be anything and retain my legitimacy. As you move down the evolutionary scale it gets harder to pull off.
Yet here we are, with you no closer to making a justifiable case for how you can know God. Apparently I haven’t cornered the market on stupid.
The question wasn’t how some historical figure acquired their knowledge of God, but how did you personally come by yours. Everyone is still waiting on that one.
Jehovah Witnesses on your doorstep will give you a personal account of their acquisition of divine knowledge, but you continually refuse to do likewise.
You continually portray such statements as if they contain some deep complex significance, but they really don’t. It must be frustrating for you when your points of discussion are less interesting than the behavior of a buffoonish TV character.
Dude.
If you didn't know it (even if it is only a half-arsed trickle down version of revelation/enlightenment, etc percolated from the caricatures of atheist hate sites) you wouldn't be able to charade it.
My whole point has simply been that your whole schtick is half arsed because your source material is half arsed.
You can't even name the relevant keywords to search for it on google, much less consider it.
And logically reject it?
Pfffft!
Staunchly rejecting the very notion of examining religious claims is vastly different from logically rejecting such claims.
Its a task simply unavailable to one who hasn't, can't and won't investigate such claims.
Just to be clear, this isn't atheist bashing. This is bashing the willfully ignorant version of atheism you have your heart sold on representing.
If you want to employ special pleading and a divide between subject/object it paves the way for anything and everything.
That's why such means are deemed fallacies of argument.
By the same brilliant means, you can also be a shit throwing monkey who is the president and so on and so forth.
I didn't grant you special pleading and a subject/object divide. You own that stupid.
I would agree that a resolute determination to remain wilfully ignorant of philosophy and history, coupled with the inability to launch arguments outside of fallacies does bestow a monopoly of sorts ...
In order to attempt to pull off your charade, you were already consulting half-arsed, trickled down, percolated versions of religious philosophy and history.
That's where you got your knowledge from.
My only gripe is that you were insisting on maintaining a dumb version of it, which inevitably delivers a dumb version of atheism ... especially when argued through dumb logical fallacies.
Done already.
You weren't interested.
Horses, water and all that.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I thought I was stating your position.......yes....the burden of proof used to feel almost like a carrying a cross......sooo heavy....
No burden of proof, I feel light as a feather.......godly almost.....
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
ZOOM! The irony of this just shot right over Jan's head.That's really convenient for you, isn't it?The cute part is that Capracus does not need to prove anything he says......
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That perfectly describes your position and presentation.
I would hate to have to deal with you as a salesman, couldn't trust your knowledge of the product or its utility, other than the "trust me" sales spiel. Why should I trust your veracity?
This may be of assistance;
https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/ever...elling-over-the-phone-in-a-single-infographic
Nonsense. I responded to what you claimed Baldeee said. It doesn't matter what he actually said or in what context he said it. I was only responding to what YOU said, period.
It's strange that you should decree the notion of consulting history and philosophy as half-arsed.
But then again, recalling your previous discussion with Tiassa, maybe not.
Last edited:
There's no point discussing this if you would rather whinge than actually read anything. It's all there, a few pages back. I just checked.
Well, that's the question.
No known God convinces everybody.
Does that mean they are all incapable?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And what is it you recall from that discussion?
You could only know that if you know God.
How did you aquire the capacity to know that?
How can it not have anything to do with scripture?
Can you see how you are talking yourself out of realising God?
You couldn’t be God, but God could be you.
Do you understand that?
Check your own description of God.
Then you are not God!
Even if I believe you are.
How would you know you are cultivating sound reason?
Jan.