Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It should be noted, that by "noncompliance", he really means "noncompliance with our make-believe BS".
I have always noted that it is metaphorical and allegorical...and that there are those that mistakenly believe and/or argue (for or against) it from a literal standpoint.
All that is needed is to note that it's not literal..."hell", "Satan", etc are representations, not actual places or individuals.
Not use puerile & vulgar terms...as that is demonstrative of low character & intellect.
I have always noted that it is metaphorical and allegorical...and that there are those that mistakenly believe and/or argue (for or against) it from a literal standpoint.
All that is needed is to note that it's not literal..."hell", "Satan", etc are representations, not actual places or individuals.
Not use puerile & vulgar terms...as that is demonstrative of low character & intellect.
With all due respect, you are so all over the map that it is impossible to tell what you are attempting to say
The only constant is that it is virtually all nonsense.
That fact that some is metaphorical and allegorical tells you it is all baloney from the get-go. Have a lovely day.
Your logic did not match the title of your first post. You cited an individual contradictions to prove that a deity does not exist?!
Other people in this forum have presented their cases using logic and science as they see it to prove that a deity does not exist. Whether I agree or disagree with their premises does not undermine my respect for their presentations. However, with you, you attack an individual and use that to prove that a god does not not exist. Sorry, to me you presented an illogical argument, very flawed. I believe there is a fallacy in logic that you used. I do not remember which one; try again.
You have a great day.
elamigo
Noted in complete disagreement. None of my arguments are flawed. Over the head of some, perhaps, but never flawed.
Noted in complete disagreement. None of my arguments are flawed. Over the head of some, perhaps, but never flawed.
You have no "argument".Just insults...and whining that almost the whole world is Religious, has been, and getting more so.
Whether the Theologies are "true" or not...they weild incredible power and influence...leaving you at the bottom of the "pecking order".
Ya know...you guys already have The Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster...and you went through all the childish effort to invent them...so, just get behind one of them.
It will have way more mojo then the concept you currently embrace (unless you are looking to be among the most hated and least trusted...it's good for doing that)...and you'd 'fit in" better.
Just trying to help y'all out...because I'm cool like that.
Noted in complete disagreement. None of my arguments are flawed. Over the head of some, perhaps, but never flawed.
Pay close attention of what you wrote and what I wrote. I specified why your presentation showed ad hominen on the guy. And all you wrote is not agreeing without telling me where I was wrong?
You reply as in the initial OP, there is a lot of hubris.
You cannot fool people. The OP message reflect disdain as much as you tried to present it with logic. Take a close look. You did not mention a single point to disprove the existence of a deity, only how the guy contradicted himself. Whereas, the title of the OP is "Example of lunacy that shows that "god" isn't real." So, showing that someone is lunatic means that a deity does not exist? If you cannot see this, it is possible that hubris is at a high level that it clouds critical thinking.
Pay close attention of what you wrote and what I wrote. I specified why your presentation showed ad hominen on the guy. And all you wrote is not agreeing without telling me where I was wrong?
You reply as in the initial OP, there is a lot of hubris.
You cannot fool people. The OP message reflect disdain as much as you tried to present it with logic. Take a close look. You did not mention a single point to disprove the existence of a deity, only how the guy contradicted himself. Whereas, the title of the OP is "Example of lunacy that shows that "god" isn't real." So, showing that someone is lunatic means that a deity does not exist? If you cannot see this, it is possible that hubris is at a high level that it clouds critical thinking.
You have a great day.
elamigo
Your mistake is to think that "lunacy" implies a lunatic. Lunacy is not a person, but, as I have used it, a characteristic of a set of actions and opinions. Don't take the term too literally. It just means "crazy stuff". Hope this helps you. Perhaps I should have put it in quotes.
Your mistake is to think that "lunacy" implies a lunatic. Lunacy is not a person, but, as I have used it, a characteristic of a set of actions and opinions. Don't take the term too literally. It just means "crazy stuff". Hope this helps you. Perhaps I should have put it in quotes.
Your logic did not match the title of your first post. You cited an individual contradictions to prove that a deity does not exist?!
Other people in this forum have presented their cases using logic and science as they see it to prove that a deity does not exist. Whether I agree or disagree with their premises does not undermine my respect for their presentations. However, with you, you attack an individual and use that to prove that a god does not not exist. Sorry, to me you presented an illogical argument, very flawed. I believe there is a fallacy in logic that you used. I do not remember which one; try again.
You have a great day.
elamigo
The fallacy was a non sequitur, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
I have always noted that it is metaphorical and allegorical...and that there are those that mistakenly believe and/or argue (for or against) it from a literal standpoint.
All that is needed is to note that it's not literal..."hell", "Satan", etc are representations, not actual places or individuals.
Not use puerile & vulgar terms...as that is demonstrative of low character & intellect.
Puerile arguments (such as yours) indicate a low intellect, but vulgar language does not. I believe there is even a science paper that shows the opposite.
Puerile arguments (such as yours) indicate a low intellect, but vulgar language does not. I believe there is even a science paper that shows the opposite.
Yes. Many reports on that so-called science paper.
Curiously..."science papers" are almost never written using that language...nor academic or legal speech & writing. Most places like this forum do not even allow it. Did you then wonder, why not?
A very good example of how some "science papers" are in line with some Religious writings.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
