LOL. Thanks for making my point, well done.
The Relevance of the Concept of God
- Thread starter Syne
- Start date
LOL. Thanks for making my point, well done.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Exactly. He pulled that same shit on me. Said he never said conscience had anything to do with God watching us. When I quoted the exact paragraph in the OP where he said it, all he says is you don't understand what I said. Then he changes the subject to moral relativism. It's a waste of time discussing anything with such a disingenuous waffling prevaricator.
If you could substantiate that, you would not need to substitute obscuring variables for the actual arguments.
Yes, go right ahead and beg off. Welcome to the ranks of mere cheerleader. The only disingenuous behavior has been your insistence on arguing strawman arguments instead of mine.
Just waiting for Capracus to join your ranks, and most of the atheists in this thread will have proved Wynn's point about never being capable of understanding.
So why bother? I just leave it up to you guys now. I've especially enjoyed Capracus in this thread. Yazata, too.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Has it ever occurred to you and your new role model Wynn that if you both aren't being understood by most the posters here then it's probably because you aren't speaking clearly enough? Nahhh..Couldn't be THAT now could it? "Must be the whole world just doesn't understand what I'm saying. Poor poor pitiful me"!
You're just feeding the troll at this point.
Nah, it could not be that ~80% of the world population believes in a god (and would understand what I have said) and the ~2% of atheists are overrepresented on a science forum.
But banish the idea of critical thinking, huh?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Oh so belief in God is now necessary for understanding your OP even though you disclaimed it depending on God's existence at all. Right.. Then you certainly chose the wrong forum to post it in didn't you?
No, they just happen to understand a concept of god in general. I did not a priori assume that this would be completely beyond the atheists here (some of which having been theists in the past). Note Capracus' insistence on conflating the concept of god with religion in general. I only assumed its connection to conscience would be beyond atheists in general. It is trivial that the concept of god is relevant to atheists, otherwise you would not feel any desire to dispute it. Irrelevancies are typically ignored.
And I simply used factual statistics to directly refuted your: "Must be the whole world just doesn't understand what I'm saying."
Rah, rah, sis boom bah!
Keep it up. You are obviously bolstering the failing confidence of your compatriots in their own ability to make rational arguments.
My compatriots have smashed your wishy-washy arguments to pieces. We all know you're full of it, and you know we know you're full of it, so what's with the posturing? What do you get out of it?
Really? So you fully agree with Capracus' conflation of the concept of god with religion in general? Or are you just to intellectually dishonest to admit it? Again, if you had a substantive argument, you would not need to make such vague, general statements.
That is okay. It would not serve your role as cheerleader.
There are not vague or general statements considering that we're in the thread where you made them. The evidence is all around us.
As for Capracus, he didn't conflate anything. You're attempting to divorce God as a concept being a governing force from religion, which is not possible. If the concept of God (which those who use it as you say they do would simply call "God," or whatever other deity they worship) has any function, it is in the religious sense. Without dogma, there is no reason to believe God is watching.
Now I'll sit here and wait for you to tell me how horribly I've misunderstood everything, or make some snide, borderline bigoted comment about atheists not being able to understand logic.
:roflmao:
You just repeated things others already said in this thread. See my replies to them.
Duh. I was correcting you on Capracus' position.
And I've seen your replies to them. Take note of my comments about your behavior.
You did not correct anything. You only aped Capracus.
Nice trap though. You make the accurate statement that I have told people they have misunderstood, only to introduce a complete strawman argument. If I deny the first, I am a liar, and if I imply you have misunderstood, you called it.
But thanks for demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty.
If you want me to actually take this seriously, quote me to back up your claims (if you can). Otherwise it is just your usual, lazy antipathy.
So if I agree with him, I'm aping him. If I disagree with him, you're vindicated on the point. Talk about setting traps!
You've been quoted, by me and others. This game isn't fun anymore. You asked, I answered you.
Now answer my question: What do you get out of this dishonesty? Do you really think you're saving face by lying?
It is trivially true that if you agree with someone you are necessarily duplicating (aping) their opinion. If you disagreed with him you might risk someone thinking you had an argument of your own.
Yes, I have been quoted, many times, on many subjects. So? I specifically meant that you needed to justify "You're attempting to divorce God as a concept being a governing force from religion" when I have not been talking about religion, other than to get people to differentiate simple terms.
There is no dishonesty on my part, but I get that you see me through the filter you judge yourself. Good luck with that.
I just re-read the OP and thought exactly the same thing. Curious.