Magical thinking.

Anarchon said:
How should I frame that question in a way that you approve of that doesn't distort the meaning of the question? You know, for someone that talks shit about semantics, and says to just argue positions and get to the point, you sure do enjoy bitching about things and not getting to the point.
Click to expand...

You are pretending that you have proved that NO GOD CAN EXIST...but you are using "god" rather than "gods" in those sentences.

I gave you detailed indications of what would have to be changed in order for me to answer your question further in my response. The changes I asked for would not distort the meaning of your question...it would make the predicates coherent so that I could answer for each. I refer you back to my #298.

Do it...or continue to chicken out.

Doesn't matter to me either way.
 
Anarchon said:
As much as Fentoine is an autistic faggot on here, he's actually right in what he said there.
Click to expand...

There was nothing "right" in his post. It was his typical inane, clueless anti-America bullshit. If you think he was right, you're just as big of a moron; there is that. ;)
 
guano said:
Sezzz german born fritzy
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Frank Apisa said:
You gave no such proof.

What you gave is a display of hubris that is laughable.

You cannot even have a reasonable discussion of the issue, because you want so badly to assert you have offered a proof. Like I said...you couldn't offer proof that you have an ass if you were providing it while naked.
Click to expand...

You admitted that you can't read the language it's written in. If that's the case, how can you determine that it's hubris, or that I gave no such proof?
 
Frank Apisa said:
You are pretending that you have proved that NO GOD CAN EXIST...but you are using "god" rather than "gods" in those sentences.

I gave you detailed indications of what would have to be changed in order for me to answer your question further in my response. The changes I asked for would not distort the meaning of your question...it would make the predicates coherent so that I could answer for each. I refer you back to my #298.

Do it...or continue to chicken out.

Doesn't matter to me either way.
Click to expand...

The god referred to is the god in question. It can be one of one if the theist is monotheistic. It can be one of many if the theist is polytheistic.

But that's just you picking nits. The main problem with your reply is that you pretend not to understand the words "believe" and "know," or the difference between a belief and knowledge. I'm not going to give you a lesson in epistemology. It was a simple yes or no question, I have my answer.

Since you'd rather not give a simple answer, and are a fan of providing positions instead of simply defined words (which at present seems like complete bullshit due to your behavior), maybe you'll fill us in on your categorizations, instead of seeing if you agree with mine. Enumerate all the positions that are discernible from one another, the categories of people with regard to their concern of god(s).
 
Anarchon said:
You admitted that you can't read the language it's written in. If that's the case, how can you determine that it's hubris, or that I gave no such proof?
Click to expand...

YOU HAVE GIVEN NO PROOF THAT GODS CANNOT EXIST.

You also are showing that you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you are wrong when you are wrong.

Arguing with you is fun only insofar as there is a bit of humor in allowing someone like you to continue digging after already having dug too far.
 
Anarchon said:
The god referred to is the god in question. It can be one of one if the theist is monotheistic. It can be one of many if the theist is polytheistic.

But that's just you picking nits. The main problem with your reply is that you pretend not to understand the words "believe" and "know," or the difference between a belief and knowledge. I'm not going to give you a lesson in epistemology. It was a simple yes or no question, I have my answer.

Since you'd rather not give a simple answer, and are a fan of providing positions instead of simply defined words (which at present seems like complete bullshit due to your behavior), maybe you'll fill us in on your categorizations, instead of seeing if you agree with mine. Enumerate all the positions that are discernible from one another, the categories of people with regard to their concern of god(s).
Click to expand...

With regard to the question of "Do any gods exist?"...there are two kinds of people...and only two kinds.

There are the people who do not know if any gods exist or not...and acknowledge they do not.

And there are the others...people who do not know if any gods exist or not...and refuse to acknowledge they do not.
 
Frank Apisa said:
With regard to the question of "Do any gods exist?"...there are two kinds of people...and only two kinds.

There are the people who do not know if any gods exist or not...and acknowledge they do not.

And there are the others...people who do not know if any gods exist or not...and refuse to acknowledge they do not.
Click to expand...

Your sets don't cover the entire universe of discourse. You refuse to acknowledge that people can have knowledge. You don't include people that aren't aware of the concept of a god. You don't acknowledge that there is a difference between belief and knowledge.
 
Frank Apisa said:
YOU HAVE GIVEN NO PROOF THAT GODS CANNOT EXIST.

You also are showing that you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you are wrong when you are wrong.

Arguing with you is fun only insofar as there is a bit of humor in allowing someone like you to continue digging after already having dug too far.
Click to expand...

You've admitted that you don't know that, yet you are representing that you know that.
 
Anarchon said:
Your sets don't cover the entire universe of discourse.
Click to expand...

Fuck you, very much for pointing that out.


But, it covers as much of the entire universe of discourse as I feel is important to this discussion.

You refuse to acknowledge that people can have knowledge.
Click to expand...

Holy shit! I do???

Well let me correct that: People CAN have knowledge.

I have knowledge. I know that the capital of France is Paris. I also know that in base 10...2 + 2 = 4.



You don't include people that aren't aware of the concept of a god.
Click to expand...

Fuck them. If you think such people exist...and you think they are important to what we are discussing...mention who they are and why they are important to our discussion.



You don't acknowledge that there is a difference between belief and knowledge.
Click to expand...

OF course I have.

Knowledge is knowledge. Beliefs, in these kinds of discussions, are blind guesses.

Okay?
 
Anarchon said:
You've admitted that you don't know that, yet you are representing that you know that.
Click to expand...

One...I would not "admit" that I do not know something, I would simply acknowledge it (something I doubt you could do)...so for certain I did not "admit" anything of the kind.

I know you have not proved that gods cannot exist...or that any gods do not exist...

...BECAUSE IT IS AN IMPOSSIBLE THING TO DO.

Get off your fucking high horse...come back to Earth...and have a decent discussion if you are able.
 
Frank Apisa said:
One...I would not "admit" that I do not know something, I would simply acknowledge it (something I doubt you could do)...so for certain I did not "admit" anything of the kind.
Click to expand...

You admitted it or acknowledged it, take your pick.

Frank Apisa said:
I do not understand what is written there in any way...
Click to expand...

For someone that claims to be opposed to arguing semantics, that seems to be all that you do.
 
Anarchon said:
One of several problems that you have is that you feel instead of think.
Click to expand...

I do plenty of thinking...and it is quality thinking. And I am able to put the quality thoughts into coherent sentences and paragraphs, which is why my thoughts on many issues have been published in leading newspapers and magazines throughout the years.

As for "thinking"...I think you are a phony...and a jerk-off.

Want to talk about that?
 
Anarchon said:
You admitted it or acknowledged it, take your pick.
Click to expand...

I said what I said...and laughed at the thoughts you suppose YOU have proved that gods not only do not exist...but that no gods CAN exist.

That is about as phony as your claim that you want to live in anarchy...while living here rather than where anarchy reigns.



For someone that claims to be opposed to arguing semantics, that seems to be all that you do.
Click to expand...

I do a great deal more than argue semantics, Anarchon. I am not responsible for your inability to see that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top