///I never professed a level beyond rudimentary.
You think you can say anything & it is up to others to show you wrong.
<>
///I never professed a level beyond rudimentary.
If you want to defy even rudimentary knowledge, its more a case of you simply saying anything.///
You think you can say anything & it is up to others to show you wrong.
<>
It's not clear how pointing out rudimentary knowledge is perpetual sidestepping.///
Perpetual attempts to sidestep issues.
<>
You haven't used it at all! You know, comparing historical facts with legend (myth).Given that I haven't transgressed science, it's not clear what you are drawing on for the comparison.
I'm not the one scrambling for a scientific authority for cosmogony, nor am I wiggling my hands to avoid dealing with 500-1500 years of history.And that is the position you find yourself in, Musika.
Once again, if you have something to ssy about the connection between trinitarianism and egyptian polytheism, it's not apparent.You haven't used it at all! You know, comparing historical facts with legend (myth).
Theism is your story, learn how to tell it believably.
///It's not clear how pointing out rudimentary knowledge is perpetual sidestepping.
Rudimentary knowledge is pretty simple.///
No surprise that something simple is not clear to you or that you pretend such.
<>
I have nothing to say about that. What gave you the impression I was interested in that useless bit of information. I don't want to know about the history of religion, I couldn't care less.Once again, if you have something to ssy about the connection between trinitarianism and egyptian polytheism, it's not apparent.
///Rudimentary knowledge is pretty simple.
The part where you were critical of rudimentary ideas about history.I have nothing to say about that. What gave you the impression I was interested in that useless bit of information.
What has history to do with occurrence of natural phenomena, other than to identify a Darwinian evolutionary process, without any evidence of intentional creation.The part where you were critical of rudimentary ideas about history.
You mean religious history of course. But then who can keep up with religious history to begin with? Buy 5 Bibles and I bet 3 will not be alike. I know, I have three bibles, all different.I'm not the one scrambling for a scientific authority for cosmogony, nor am I wiggling my hands to avoid dealing with 500-1500 years of history.
Historians.You mean religious history of course. But then who can keep up with religious history to begin with? .
So you're going to stick with your "I'm right, you're wrong, get an education" approach? You've had plenty of opportunity to actually provide something that counters what was stated in this regard, but rather than do so you've simply reiterated that they're wrong and need an education. Fair enough. It's clearly not a discussion you're after, then, is it? So what is it you're after here?If you want to jump from trinitarianism to egyptian polytheism, you have to do more than wiggle your hands emphatically for perhaps a 1000 year period, especially the politically turbulent 500 or so years that saw christianity develop. It is just like someone drawing a connection between roman aethiopes and martin luther king (the standard response being, "Didn't you just skip about one or two thousand years of history?"
A discussion that doesn't violate or require the radical suspension of rudimentary history, perhaps?So you're going to stick with your "I'm right, you're wrong, get an education" approach? You've had plenty of opportunity to actually provide something that counters what was stated in this regard, but rather than do so you've simply reiterated that they're wrong and need an education. Fair enough. It's clearly not a discussion you're after, then, is it? So what is it you're after here?
That's the ideal, sure, but if you spot something that does go against what you consider to be rudimentary history then, and here's just me throwing out, you know, a crazy idea, would it not be better to highlight what you see as the violation in a manner conducive to actual discussion, rather than simply telling them (words to the effect) that they are wrong and should get an education?A discussion that doesn't violate rudimentary history, perhaps?
I've already pointed it out : ignoring at least 1000 years of history, especially the 500 or so that historians have a field day with when explaining the origins of trinitarianism.That's the ideal, sure, but if you spot something that does go against what you consider to be rudimentary history then, and here's just me throwing out, you know, a crazy idea, would it not be better to highlight what you see as the violation in a manner conducive to actual discussion, rather than simply telling them (words to the effect) that they are wrong and should get an education?
But hey, I guess someone implying they have such an education is no guarantee that they have can behave with decency, is it.
You honestly think that's being helpful, and conducive to further discussion on the matter? You don't see how what you are pointing out is nothing more than "you clearly aren't educated on the matter"?I've already pointed it out : ignoring at least 1000 years of history, especially the 500 or so that historians have a field day with when explaining the origins of trinitarianism.
And rudimentary history will prove that atheists do not really exist?A discussion that doesn't violate or require the radical suspension of rudimentary history, perhaps?