|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 12:53:50 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur Prolégomène I’m not à godess, please, I can read anything toilet papier included. Off topic again. Focus. How’s the light mattress ? Do’you like it being on the couch ? Hugs, kisses, love T Remember what I said about trolling? I do.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 13:30:33 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur As it comes to intellectual religions, all’you need is reading the book/instruction manual. I did not jest in that post where I noted somtg about posting not being the same as free speech. When the book does no include à special offer regular offer, neither billing, the reffered god is not. When any one pretends to get money from you on religious ground, they are breaking laws, here. They may actually get prosecuted as a cult.
Btw constraints is bad enough, no need for a gun on the tabletop. Just saying. Imho.
Off topic, you are back, I thought so, am glad too. What about the bet ?
And you are again going at taking what does not suit you out from other’s posts, emptying them’of their substance. What was it that you wrote above ? Did you or did you not complain about short format txt ? You do not like short format and you can’t have long posts without cutting into them.
There is actually no pleasing some people indeed !
As long as smtgs is ’ailing you, couch. I can’t wash the sheets everyday, besides. So please, do not pee on the couch either.
Loads of love.
T
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 14:01:02 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur As it comes to intellectual religions, all’you need is reading the book/instruction manual. An instruction manual cannot necessarily prove that the object exists which is, still the point, here. I would have thought that would be obvious from your comics. www.amazon.co.uk/U-S-S-Enterprise-Manual-Haynes-Workshop/dp/1844259412Once again, I have no idea what you are on about here or why. Now it sounds as if you have no one else to talk to. It is one better addressed to yourself. You will remember that I found several of the faults you claim in my messages, rather ironically, clear enough in yours at that time. No, my issue has entirely been with your poor English and comprehensibility. Or indeed relevance. And I see that you still have not addressed most, or all of my last few points. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 14:13:36 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur You...see!? Erm... admin posted smtg about that above. So did’I. Not twice. Oh, well, you can pee on the couch at your own leisure. It’s yours, now. Lovey, love
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 14:15:29 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.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 17:25:55 GMT
Film flaneur, How do you do ? Couch confortable? When on earth did I called you names ? 💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋💋 💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖 🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂🫂 T
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 18:35:49 GMT
Film flaneur, How do you do ? Couch confortable? (sic) When on earth did I called you names ? An insult does not have to be mere name-calling to be meant as such. You addressed me, not my argument, in a deliberately demeaning way. Ad hominem: an argument (or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. QED. But I guess at the moment that is all you really have.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2024 21:19:40 GMT
An instruction manual cannot necessarily prove that the object exists which is, still the point, here. Someone didn't read the OP: "Suspend your belief/disbelief for a minute. Just assume God exists..." Which is exactly what you did in your first post in this thread. Did you get lost in your own weeds again?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 27, 2024 21:31:15 GMT
🎥 🎬 🎦 🎞 flaneur Noooo, I have a couch for you to sleep on. That’s better than a kick in the shins. And love. I love you so much I plan on adopting you. Moohah!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 27, 2024 23:06:03 GMT
An instruction manual cannot necessarily prove that the object exists which is, still the point, here. Someone didn't read the OP: "Suspend your belief/disbelief for a minute. Just assume God exists..." Which is exactly what you did in your first post in this thread. Did you get lost in your own weeds again? We have been here before, it was when you grudgingly agreed that one is not necessarily bound by the assumption of threads. Remember? In any case I was answering specifically to the claim that "As it comes to intellectual religions, all you need is reading the book/instruction manual. ... When the book does no include à special offer regular offer, neither billing, the reffered god is not. " Of course, given the standard of writing here I might have misunderstood. I agree though I would have been better writing "An instruction manual cannot necessarily prove that the object exists or not"
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2024 1:01:47 GMT
Someone didn't read the OP: "Suspend your belief/disbelief for a minute. Just assume God exists..." Which is exactly what you did in your first post in this thread. Did you get lost in your own weeds again? We have been here before, it was when you grudgingly agreed that one is not necessarily bound by the assumption of threads. Remember? I remember you trying to sidestep the conditional, as you're doing here. So, are you going to buy that house?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 28, 2024 1:35:38 GMT
We have been here before, it was when you grudgingly agreed that one is not necessarily bound by the assumption of threads. Remember? I remember you trying to sidestep the conditional, as you're doing here. So, are you going to buy that house? No, I simply not obliged to accept the assumption of any thread. And I will not make any major decision without the chance of an informed choice.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 28, 2024 2:25:03 GMT
I remember you trying to sidestep the conditional, as you're doing here. So, are you going to buy that house? No, I simply not obliged to accept the assumption of any thread. That's true, but if you're aren't playing by the rules, you're playing a completely different game. You've spent 12 pages now contesting the conditional after accepting it in your first response. This is why discussions with you so often go off the rails and into the weeds. Seems to me that the first order of business would be to eliminate any doubt you may have that the house even exists. Whether or not you buy it is as irrelevant to your original question as you saying that you might not eat the jelly bean. Eliminating all doubt of the existence of something isn't the same as worshiping, buying, or eating it. It's real simple. If doubt of God's existence is removed, doubt of God's existence would no longer be an option to choose. The informed choice you keep talking about (ie, whether or not to worship God, buy the house, or eat the bean) presumes his existence, as the OP made clear. To challenge that conditional is to preclude your question. K.I.S.S.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 12:45:04 GMT
No, I simply not obliged to accept the assumption of any thread. That's true.. QED then. Seem to me that that was the exact point of my original question, or at least it would be something to make my persuasion much more likely. The equation is simple in my comparison: buying = believing - as I would have hoped everyone else would have seen. Indeed; which is why if you ever look back you can see that, at least one point I say that, after I am persuaded of the existence of God, it would be no means certain I go on to worship such a jealous angry and cruel deity. Please pay attention and stop pointing out the obvious. Talking of the obvious: thank you for stumbling across the cake-and-eat-it argument, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it . i.e. Once one is convinced enough as to choose to believe in God one cannot choose to believe in God all over again. Well, duh. Hey, perhaps we better not believe in God so that we always have the choice to believe in him? Or not buy a house as we would then lose the opportunity to buy it? Your logic, as always, is impeccable. Choice only matters before a decision. I hope that helps. In any event none of this reduces the advantages of making a significant choice best on best information, which no one has seriously claimed a bad thing. And my asking why does God not offer this and secure more souls knowing what best ought to work to persuade, while recognising that the obdurate are always with us. No one has come up with a sensible answer yet which leaves me with an atheist's suspicions. But I do know how you like your diversions. So what? You have already agreed, and again above, that one is not obliged here; it is not conditional thereafter to hold to the assumptions of the thread throughout. Sorry about that. My original question may suffer, but it is all theoretical anyway, it is quite legitimate for an atheist to speculate and the thread moves on. If only you would.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 20:50:35 GMT
My original question may suffer Oh, look who's pointing out the obvious now. QED
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 21:14:53 GMT
My original question may suffer Oh, look who's pointing out the obvious now. QED But I am still not obliged to accept the assumptions of the thread as you agreed, while my original question can still be asked. You are reaching again. Thank you for your detailed rebuttal.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 21:29:40 GMT
Oh, look who's pointing out the obvious now. QED But I am still not obliged to accept the assumptions of the thread as you agreed, while my original question can still be asked. You are reaching again. Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. And so you don't. QED
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 21:46:44 GMT
But I am still not obliged to accept the assumptions of the thread as you agreed, while my original question can still be asked. You are reaching again. Thank you for your detailed rebuttal. And so you don't. QED That's right, I am an atheist - see how that works?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 22:44:58 GMT
That's right, I am an atheist - see how that works? That's irrelevant to asserting your right to go off the rails.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 30, 2024 12:06:49 GMT
That's right, I am an atheist - see how that works? 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.
|
|