|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2017 1:47:49 GMT
You're making the same mistake I just corrected ArArArchStanton for. Simply because you have no evidence does not mean no one else can have any either. That's a very serious and obvious brain defect to think that way. Please seek professional help. Actually I agree with that, so you didn't correct me.
The problem I've corrected you on, is that you don't have any evidence.
No, you believe I have no evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 1:52:56 GMT
You have a total of three brain defects. One is that the "god" most people experience is not a concrete, physical object that anyone can "show" you. Your expectation is obviously for something even people who cannot grasp abstract concepts can "see." The brain defect in that case is not understanding abstract ideas. I've never said that god is a physical object, nor required anybody to physically show him/her/it to me. I don't even require scientific evidence. I've said many times that I'm happy to chuck scientific evidence out the window when it comes to god. I always ask the same thing : if we're not to use science to prove god, then please tell me what method we should use. And most importantly, tell me how this method distinguishes between truth and falsehood. No believer has ever managed to answer these questions. Some even run away from the idea that they need to prove anything, demonstrating that they are cowards and/or liars. This is correct. Facts are facts for everybody. There is no such thing as a thing that is a fact to one person and not a fact to another. 1) There is no proof of an intelligent designer. This is just something you like to say and then completely refuse to back up. A somewhat familiar pattern for you, though amazingly enough you wet your panties when somebody else does it to you. Funny, that. 2) Even if one conceded that there must be an intelligent designer, it doesn't lead one to god. This was demonstrated in the thread where you claimed that you could prove god and started babbling on about intelligent design. I conceded for the same of the discussion that evolution was false, intelligent design was true, and asked you for the promised proof of god. And you spent the entire rest of the thread studiously ignoring this question. So I'm sorry, but given your track record I couldn't be happier that you think I am mentally ill. Because such a diagnosis coming from a man who's presents every indication of having no real understanding of... well, anything really... is a high complement indeed.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Apr 1, 2017 1:52:59 GMT
You believe I'm lying. I believe you're lying. That is all. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You believe I'm lying? You're making the same mistake I just corrected j2 for. Simply because you have no evidence does not mean no one else can have any either. That's a very serious and obvious brain defect to think that way. Please seek professional help. Please point out the "correction"; I must have missed it, thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 1:53:22 GMT
Actually I agree with that, so you didn't correct me.
The problem I've corrected you on, is that you don't have any evidence.
No, you believe I have no evidence. No, I know you don't. I keep telling you, I have 100% proof.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 1, 2017 1:53:25 GMT
You believe I'm lying. I believe you're lying. That is all. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You believe I'm lying? You're making the same mistake I just corrected j2 for. Simply because you have no evidence does not mean no one else can have any either. That's a very serious and obvious brain defect to think that way. Please seek professional help. Your point could not be more clear, yet J2, blade, and even arlon cant comprehend it. Too funny.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 1, 2017 1:54:57 GMT
You believe I'm lying? You're making the same mistake I just corrected j2 for. Simply because you have no evidence does not mean no one else can have any either. That's a very serious and obvious brain defect to think that way. Please seek professional help. Please point out the "correction"; I must have missed it, thank you. Are you aware you are making basically the same point as graham is making? Do you really not understand what he is doing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 1:58:19 GMT
You find that a lot with Arlon. Funny story. I once had a long discussion with him about morality. I made an analogy for morality that was about dieting - making the point that different people may have different diets, and this may be appropriate for their different lifestyles and goals. So an athlete may have a different diet than a diabetic, for example. And yet, there are diets that are objectively bad - eating nothing but sugar will kill you. I'm sure you get how that's analogous to morality, where different societies have different codes, but there are universally good and bad codes. You know what his refutation was? "You're wrong, because liberals want to control everyone's diet like the Mayor of New York banning big soda cups." I wish I was joking.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2017 2:01:03 GMT
You believe I'm lying. I believe you're lying. That is all. You're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. You believe I'm lying? You're making the same mistake I just corrected j2 for. Simply because you have no evidence does not mean no one else can have any either. That's a very serious and obvious brain defect to think that way. Please seek professional help. I am not making the mistake you are. I claim to believe what I believe. You claim that yours is not a belief. See the difference yet? Furthermore there are things I do know with the same certainty as that there is gravity, specifically that there had to be an intelligent designer. This is concrete, physical science and a whole different ball game than specific systematic approaches to life known as religions and the "god" in which people believe.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 1, 2017 2:03:04 GMT
You find that a lot with Arlon. Funny story. I once had a long discussion with him about morality. I made an analogy for morality that was about dieting - making the point that different people may have different diets, and this may be appropriate for their different lifestyles and goals. So an athlete may have a different diet than a diabetic, for example. And yet, there are diets that are objectively bad - eating nothing but sugar will kill you. I'm sure you get how that's analogous to morality, where different societies have different codes, but there are universally good and bad codes. You know what his refutation was? "You're wrong, because liberals want to control everyone's diet like the Mayor of New York banning big soda cups." I wish I was joking. My favourite is still his claim that he has proven intelligent design, even got a copyright for his work, but didn't get it published because he didn't want to affect the 2012 election (talk about delusions of grandeur). Then, he said he didn't have it published leading up to the mid terms after that, again, because of how they would be affected. Fancy that, he said the same about the last presidential election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 2:03:40 GMT
You believe I'm lying? You're making the same mistake I just corrected j2 for. Simply because you have no evidence does not mean no one else can have any either. That's a very serious and obvious brain defect to think that way. Please seek professional help. I am not making the mistake you are. I claim to believe what I believe. You claim that yours is not a belief. See the difference yet? You claim to believe that you have proof. I claim to believe that I have proof that you do not have proof. What was that difference again? No, it isn't. It's just something you want to believe. But in fact intelligence design was invented as a lie. It was rapidly shown to be a lie by science. And then it was demonstrated to be a lie in a court of law. Sucks to have your demonstrably untrue belief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 2:05:32 GMT
You find that a lot with Arlon. Funny story. I once had a long discussion with him about morality. I made an analogy for morality that was about dieting - making the point that different people may have different diets, and this may be appropriate for their different lifestyles and goals. So an athlete may have a different diet than a diabetic, for example. And yet, there are diets that are objectively bad - eating nothing but sugar will kill you. I'm sure you get how that's analogous to morality, where different societies have different codes, but there are universally good and bad codes. You know what his refutation was? "You're wrong, because liberals want to control everyone's diet like the Mayor of New York banning big soda cups." I wish I was joking. My favourite is still his claim that he has proven intelligent design, even got a copyright for his work, but didn't get it published because he didn't want to affect the 2012 election (talk about delusions of grandeur). Then, he said he didn't have it published leading up to the mid terms after that, again, because of how they would be affected. Fancy that, he said the same about the last presidential election. ROFL. You ever see that Seinfeld episode where Kramer brags about being the best in his class at martial arts, and then when they go to see everyone else in the class is like a ten year old kid? I feel like that talking to Arlon. It's nice to win all the time and all, but you really can't take that much pride in it!
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Apr 1, 2017 2:05:46 GMT
Please point out the "correction"; I must have missed it, thank you. Are you aware you are making basically the same point as graham is making? Do you really not understand what he is doing? I just pointed out his words as unreliable and at least one of his statements as hard to prove to say the least. He is not following a coherent line of thought with his answers to me and now somehow he "corrected" me. That's all I see, really. The 'point' here being similar or the same to his wouldn't change the fact of the lack of weight of his words, or would it? Thank you for the input.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 1, 2017 2:14:24 GMT
Are you aware you are making basically the same point as graham is making? Do you really not understand what he is doing? I just pointed out his words as unreliable and at least one of his statements as hard to prove to say the least. He is not following a coherent line of thought with his answers to me and now somehow he "corrected" me. That's all I see, really. The 'point' here being similar or the same to his wouldn't change the fact of the lack of weight of his words, or would it? Thank you for the input. I see you dont understand the conversation you are having.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Apr 1, 2017 2:24:44 GMT
I just pointed out his words as unreliable and at least one of his statements as hard to prove to say the least. He is not following a coherent line of thought with his answers to me and now somehow he "corrected" me. That's all I see, really. The 'point' here being similar or the same to his wouldn't change the fact of the lack of weight of his words, or would it? Thank you for the input. I see you dont understand the conversation you are having. I see what he tries to do but it's irrelevant; his words remain weak and that's part of the point. He can't face Arlon10 or anyone else with such words because they wouldn't hold. It's no surprise to me that he used ridicule at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 2:26:37 GMT
I have to say, this thread has taken a very amusing turn. I am entertained.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2017 2:28:57 GMT
You find that a lot with Arlon. Funny story. I once had a long discussion with him about morality. I made an analogy for morality that was about dieting - making the point that different people may have different diets, and this may be appropriate for their different lifestyles and goals. So an athlete may have a different diet than a diabetic, for example. And yet, there are diets that are objectively bad - eating nothing but sugar will kill you. I'm sure you get how that's analogous to morality, where different societies have different codes, but there are universally good and bad codes. You know what his refutation was? "You're wrong, because liberals want to control everyone's diet like the Mayor of New York banning big soda cups." I wish I was joking. You are either mentally retarded or lying, or there is that slim possibility you're both. Understanding that people have different dietary needs is consistent with opposing a tax on any particular food item. I never said anyone should eat "nothing but sugar" nor does that follow logically from opposing the tax for the reason we have both seen. I am not entirely certain eating nothing but sugar would kill, but I am certain we'll never find out since no one is interested in testing the theory. Obese people eat all sorts of foods. The tax on soda (but not sugar!!!) is just the government being unnecessarily obtrusive. You agree with it because you have mental defects noted several times and depend on government for all your opinions.
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
|
Post by puvo on Apr 1, 2017 2:30:16 GMT
I see you dont understand the conversation you are having. I see what he tries to do but it's irrelevant; his words remain weak and that's part of the point. He can't face Arlon10 or anyone else with such words because they wouldn't hold. It's no surprise to me that he used ridicule at this point. His point is simply Arlon saying he has proof isnt proof of anything, especially when he don't share it. That his words hold no weight on their own. How does your point counter that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 2:31:22 GMT
Oh my god, this is priceless.
I make a post demonstrating that Arlon doesn't understand what an analogy is. And he replies... and does the exact same thing.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Apr 1, 2017 2:33:54 GMT
It doesn't prove anything.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Apr 1, 2017 2:54:54 GMT
I see what he tries to do but it's irrelevant; his words remain weak and that's part of the point. He can't face Arlon10 or anyone else with such words because they wouldn't hold. It's no surprise to me that he used ridicule at this point. His point is simply Arlon saying he has proof isnt proof of anything, especially when he don't share it. That his words hold no weight on their own. How does your point counter that? I don't try to counter what he says about Arlon10's words. What I say is that his words (@graham's), those which I wrote about, are unreliable. If he tries to build any argument or set of propositions based on those words, he won't hold to scrutiny. He couldn't. Therefore, what he says against Arlon10 may sound sufficient, but in fact it isn't and it can't be.
|
|