|
Post by Admin on Jan 30, 2024 21:33:14 GMT
That's irrelevant to asserting your right to go off the rails. Rather a exaggeration that, lol. After my initial question I simply suggested, after a while, that as a non-believer I have strong suspicions why a supposed god would not be expected to ever answer it and so prove itself. A suspicion, you may recall, is not the same as an assertion, even though you are apparently treating it as such. But I guess it serves you to misrepresent. But more to the point, here's a reminder of Jer 33: "'Call to Me and I will answer you, and tell you [and even show you] great and mighty things, [things which have been confined and hidden], which you do not know and understand and cannot distinguish" That is, ask and His mysterious ways will be made clear. Have you tried that yet? Any answer? My suspicions remain. So now you just suspect you have the right to go off the rails? lol I'm not Jeremiah, and you already ate that cake way back on page one, in your first response to me.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 30, 2024 22:09:19 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur You...see!? Erm... admin posted smtg about that above. So did’I. Not twice. And this refers to... An ad hominem (insulting the other rather than addressing what he says) is not an argument. Film flâneur I lookep up all the books in Troll law : adoption laws do not look very different from, erm common or garden people’s law. Love,T
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 31, 2024 17:59:53 GMT
And this refers to... An ad hominem (insulting the other rather than addressing what he says) is not an argument. Film flâneur I lookep up all the books in Troll law : adoption laws do not look very different from, erm common or garden people’s law. Love,T Not sure (as usual) what you are on about. But an ad hominem is still not an argument. It is addressing the person insultingly, not what they say. Trolling is when someone post or comments online to deliberately upset others. As in, say, repeating a trivial and demeaning refrain. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 31, 2024 23:00:13 GMT
Film flaneur About your notion of ad hominem I read at last one comic a month, when I have the opportunity. (I used to read anything, toilet paper included, again. Feel free to do so) You were the one implying that reading comic book is somewhat wrong. A huge amount of people do read comic books. When I am your mother, I shall have a lot of teaching to do. But here, between you and I there must be at last 15 years of elapsed time from both our birth dates so adoption can take place. How old are you ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 1, 2024 11:19:01 GMT
Film flaneur About your notion of ad hominem I read at last one comic a month, when I have the opportunity. (I used to read anything, toilet paper included, again. Feel free to do so) You were the one implying that reading comic book is somewhat wrong. How old are you ? I merely said that I am not surprised that you read comics. Ought I be? I am surprised however that you used to read toilet paper; but then again any course of self-education is best started at the bottom. And, mind your own business.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 1, 2024 11:22:08 GMT
Film flaneur Why is it that you wrote about god wanting to sell you anything, I don't think I did. The exact relevance of which still needs explaining. Yes, that I had no idea what you were on about in the current context.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 1, 2024 16:40:50 GMT
Film flaneur Why is it that you wrote about god wanting to sell you anything, I don't think I did. The exact relevance of which still needs explaining. Yes, that I had no idea what you were on about in the current context. No idea like that’s your fhirst name ? Yes, and you should stop after I adopt you . 💋
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 1, 2024 18:27:23 GMT
I don't think I did. The exact relevance of which still needs explaining. Yes, that I had no idea what you were on about in the current context. No idea like that’s your fhirst name ? Yes, and you should stop after I adopt you . 💋 Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 2, 2024 12:32:25 GMT
Suspend your belief/disbelief for a minute. Just assume God exists... You can ask Him/Her just one question... What would it be? You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation? “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” John 4:48
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 2, 2024 20:41:51 GMT
No idea like that’s your fhirst name ? Yes, and you should stop after I adopt you . 💋 Whatever. Anyway, your frame of reference does expand from god to real estate, which is big money Business. And I inform you that here ground for prosecution of cults is money. And you cut it out of my post... Is there any sense in that cut ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 2, 2024 21:29:31 GMT
You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation? “Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” John 4:48 'Jelly bean? What jelly bean? I don't see any jelly bean.' Also:
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 3, 2024 10:37:55 GMT
“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” John 4:48 'Jelly bean? What jelly bean? I don't see any jelly bean.' In regards to that bean, I must thank you. I now have looked at the picture of the bean you kindly provided and am convinced that at least the picture exists. You have recognised and demonstrated the principle that knowing what it ought to take to persuade me, you worked to effect matters by enabling an informed decision. QED. Now, if only God was able to provide such a clear and unambiguous evidence too, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 3, 2024 20:49:00 GMT
“Unless you people see signs and wonders,” Jesus told him, “you will never believe.” John 4:48 'Jelly bean? What jelly bean? I don't see any jelly bean.' In regards to that bean, I must thank you. I now have looked at the picture of the bean you kindly provided and am convinced that at least the picture exists. You have recognised and demonstrated the principle that knowing what it ought to take to persuade me, you worked to effect matters by enabling an informed decision. QED. Now, if only God was able to provide such a clear and unambiguous evidence too, eh? You're still being dishonest. You looked at the jelly bean on page 6. Again, you didn't choose to believe it exists, as demonstrated by your first response in which you acknowledged it, and your total failure to deny it over the course of seven pages. At any rate, now that you've finally admitted that the jelly bean does indeed exist, you can decide whether or not to "eat" it, although I suspect you'll need more information...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 4, 2024 20:06:59 GMT
You looked at the jelly bean on page 6. Again, you didn't choose to believe it exists, as demonstrated by your first response in which you acknowledged it, and your total failure to deny it over the course of seven pages. I looked but was only persuaded through information, which was your aim I remember. Before, I was one of the obdurate, a bean agnostic. Agnostics acknowledge the idea of beans without believing in them. Thank you again though for helping to prove my point, which was all that matters. It was very useful. An ad hominem is not an argument. Indeed. QED, and thank you again here.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 4, 2024 22:32:08 GMT
You looked at the jelly bean on page 6. Again, you didn't choose to believe it exists, as demonstrated by your first response in which you acknowledged it, and your total failure to deny it over the course of seven pages. I looked but was only persuaded through information, which was your aim I remember. Before, I was one of the obdurate, a bean agnostic. Agnostics acknowledge the idea of beans without believing in them. Thank you again though for helping to prove my point, which was all that matters. It was very useful. An ad hominem is not an argument. Indeed. QED, and thank you again here. The original point of the jelly bean was to demonstrate that when there's only one option, there is no decision to be made. Now would be a good time for you to stop flopping from the decision to believe the bean exists and the decision to eat it. It's also a good time for you to learn what an ad hominem is. Saying you're being dishonest is neither an insult nor a fallacy; it's a relevant, objective fact and it isn't being used to discredit your argument. If anything, it's a plea for you to stop being disingenuous so we can get off this first baby step. So you're not even going to ask what flavor it is? So much for your "informed choice."
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 4, 2024 23:02:35 GMT
Admin I noted it was going to be long... Pussycat above is definitely delaying.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 4, 2024 23:14:36 GMT
Admin I noted it was going to be long... Pussycat above is definitely delaying. I think you said it best when you said: "I see you take the liberty of modifying even the way I typed. Suits you. There was a whole paragraph between two things you put together." and: "I suspect also that you won’t stop manipulate format and contents to your own purpose." It's what he does. He spins and chops quotes to twist what you say into what he wants you to say so he can give himself that oh-so very coveted "QED." It's beyond tiresome.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Feb 5, 2024 0:47:52 GMT
Admin I noted it was going to be long... Pussycat above is definitely delaying. I think you said it best when you said: "I see you take the liberty of modifying even the way I typed. Suits you. There was a whole paragraph between two things you put together." and: "I suspect also that you won’t stop manipulate format and contents to your own purpose." It's what he does. He spins and chops quotes to twist what you say into what he wants you to say so he can give himself that oh-so very coveted "QED." It's beyond tiresome. Baby is a late bloomer.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2024 16:32:46 GMT
The original point of the jelly bean was to demonstrate that when there's only one option, there is no decision to be made. Well, duh. We've done this, just a short while back. Have cake and eat it, anyone? And, as before, the observation is the same: that after a choice has been made, the absence of those previous options is no longer an issue. Or otherwise one would not choose to believe in God because, er, one would then lose the choice to believe in God. Is that a sensible objection against making an informed choice after being fully persuaded of something? It sounds more a weak argument, when that is all you have. Repeating a trite truism does not change that. As you ought to remember I am convinced that at least the picture exists. Thank you, yet again, for earlier providing further information about the bean, allowing me to make a decision. It is addressing me, not my argument, and it is intended as insulting. It is the person who is likely to feel insulted who is the one who calls it out in such cases, notwithstanding those who supposedly see nothing wrong in their actions. "/ˌæd ˈhɑːmɪnem/ (from Latin, formal) directed against a person's character rather than their argument. " OED definition. See that as further information, and I hope that helps. Exactly so. QED then. LOL Looks like more sour grapes from here, bub.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 6, 2024 21:32:29 GMT
Admin I noted it was going to be long... Pussycat above is definitely delaying. I'm flattered that you eagerly await my replies. Inbetween times, why not just catch up on your reading? There's plenty to be had in the bathroom.
|
|