|
Post by SciFive on Dec 26, 2020 18:34:38 GMT
Feeling uncomfortable, FF?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 26, 2020 22:46:42 GMT
For the last time, it's not my premise. See thread title. And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio! I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. I personally don't care, but it seems to be somewhat important to you. Any more loose ends you need me to tie up?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:01:58 GMT
And for the last time, by omitting any conditionals in a statement, one makes of it an absolute, thus changing it. But I am pleased that you agree with me that a completely omnipotent god is logically incoherent, which has always been the point, really. Emotion and psychology are still powerful things aren't they? Cheerio! I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. Well, yes; you have already said that "I just happen to agree with your esteemed colleagues at Stanford" even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Yes: if you personally don't care and have already said goodbye, what are you doing back here?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2020 0:06:46 GMT
I believe the first LOL was yours, and technically, you agreed with me. Well, yes; I have already said that you accepting the 'Stanford' view of the illogicality of total omnipotence a while back was the same as I said, even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Round and round you go! Because you care and I'm a considerate dude.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:19:20 GMT
Well, yes; I have already said that you accepting the 'Stanford' view of the illogicality of total omnipotence a while back was the same as I said, even if you don't recognise the role of conditionals in English grammar. Round and round you go! Nope. As we both agree, except for helping SciFive, off I get. Not enough to play message ping pong any more, but thank you for coming back just to patronise, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2020 0:22:47 GMT
Nope. As we both agree, except for helping SciFive, off I get. Not enough to play message ping pong any more, but thank you for coming back just to patronise, anyway. So, no more loose ends? That's good. I'm glad I could help.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:25:59 GMT
Feeling uncomfortable, FF? Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 0:40:16 GMT
Feeling uncomfortable, FF? Evasion noted. It took you 6 hours to write this. Discomfort noted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 0:43:39 GMT
It took you 6 hours to write this. Discomfort noted. Some of us have better things to do over the holidays. So once again: please quote where I have 'slandered billion and billions of innocent people'. Is not finding anything going to be a discomforting problem?
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 1:15:57 GMT
You’re on an agenda to slander billions and billions of innocent people. What you say is tainted by this. It can’t be taken seriously. Interesting how objective and logical truth of argument suddenly gets turned around into slander. Seriously! What objective or logical truth? You can’t prove anything. You just explode with your vast intolerance and steaming hatred for other people.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2020 1:19:04 GMT
Interesting how objective and logical truth of argument suddenly gets turned around into slander. Seriously! What objective or logical truth? You can’t prove anything. You just explode with your vast intolerance and steaming hatred for other people. I remember when it was a pleasure chatting with him, but now he's little more than a combatant troll. I miss my friend.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 1:20:13 GMT
Interesting how objective and logical truth of argument suddenly gets turned around into slander. Seriously! What objective or logical truth? You can’t prove anything. You just explode with your vast intolerance and steaming hatred for other people. Still waiting for the quote where I slander billions ... er, what was it you just said about not being able to prove anything?
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 1:28:32 GMT
You guys devote your lives to calling innocent people delusional, etc, which is slandering them for their thoughts.
You can’t prove a doggone thing.
You’re just vastly intolerant.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 1:32:06 GMT
You guys devote your lives to calling innocent people delusional, etc, which is slandering them for their thoughts. You can’t prove a doggone thing. You’re just vastly intolerant. Evasion noted. Again.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 1:36:53 GMT
You guys devote your lives to calling innocent people delusional, etc, which is slandering them for their thoughts. You can’t prove a doggone thing. You’re just vastly intolerant. Evasion noted. Again. Your discomfort is noted again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 1:39:44 GMT
Your discomfort is noted again. Not discomfort more disappointment that you cannot back up what you say. Ah well. Since you can't manage this, perhaps you can tell us why in a free society, while always fully respecting the right to hold them, religious beliefs cannot be criticised?
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 1:41:54 GMT
Your discomfort is noted again. Not discomfort more disappointment that you cannot back up what you say. Ah well. Since you can't manage this, perhaps you can tell us why in a free society, while always fully respecting the right to hold them, religious beliefs cannot be criticised? Why can’t intolerant religion-hating jugheads be criticized?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 1:50:08 GMT
Not discomfort more disappointment that you cannot back up what you say. Ah well. Since you can't manage this, perhaps you can tell us why in a free society, while always fully respecting the right to hold them, religious beliefs cannot be criticised? Why can’t intolerant religion-hating jugheads be criticized? Who says they can't? However, freedom cuts both ways. It is worth reminding you though that personal insults are not arguments. And this is second or third direct question you have failed to answer. Well, I'm off for now. If you do ever come across anything I've said that equates to 'slandering billions of innocents', feel free to quote it here at any time. Or it won't look good.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 27, 2020 1:53:37 GMT
Calling people delusional when you can’t prove them wrong is intolerant and slandering them.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 27, 2020 2:03:45 GMT
Calling people delusional when you can’t prove them wrong is intolerant and slandering them. If only I ever did that.. but it's a good job that you don't call others "intolerant religion-hating jugheads", isn't it? That would just be hypocritical.
|
|