A question for Agnostics...

Mostly self-serving rubbish, of course' both right and left wingers hate Da Evul Xians for their own reasons, mostly they just hate anything that interferes with their hedonism and mindless greed and self-indulgence, is all. If you think what we have now has been 'social progress', then you must come from very poor circumstances.

 

I personally think not murdering people for blasphemy is progress, but you do you. You must come from very poor circumstances if you believe that.

 

I think a historical Jesus probably existed, but I don't think that is saying much. I think the stories attributed to him are likely partly historical, partly fantasy. It is likely numerous stories about numerous people mixed together over the years. And you can think that without having any belief in God or Jesus being anything but a human being.

 

Your ass writes cheques your brain declares were never written, and then declares "victory" over others who you haven't actually had any real discussion or argument with.

Your act was fun but is getting old.

 

In my experience, "Christians" are just as likely to engage in mindless greed as to oppose it. Isn't it remarkable that Jesus Christ in the bible is pretty much depicted as a hippy, saying give away all your stuff to the poor, etc and then the "Christian Right" is the opposite?

Imagine if Jesus as depicted in the bible wrote the tax code. There would be no rich. There would also be no immigration policies keeping anybody out.

 

Thats what I see when I click the link.

seems they did! post 3112

In addition, I remember a self proclaimed logic teacher saying A or ~A in a bivalent system lol

 

Still smarting over the agony of defeat I see.
everyone noted you had no response to my citation.
Do you need me to pick some bandages?
I know first aid!

 

I sincerely can't see what part of these words you don't understand. Maybe try reading them again? Ask if you need help.

 

so have political forum atheists.

 

I see you lost continuity again, thats why you cant see, nothing about me.

 

It's all about you. No one else is having difficulty understanding these words but you. I see the continuity, which is why I can easily see your blatant misrepresentation. There's a reason why you had to make up fake quotes.

 

Sigh, its not like I have not had ample experience with this charade of his. Somehow I had hoped he would respect the OP here and not drag this issue from a previous debate . He's not actually a one trick pony. He's got three of them - all designed to divide agnostics from atheists but none of them work with agnostic - atheists. Those have to be eliminated.

 

This is a new debate and you are singing the same old disrespectful song about agnostics and expect me to sit on the sidelines while you say anything you want with impunity, NOT going to happen.

I understand the desire for some people and your hope for taxonomy, but its not possible with 3 exclusive terms.

 

you dodged my question, and you pretend a 2 term premise has only one term which is falsely stating the premise, I corrected you. say thank you koko. Quoting the reduction as a whole is a division fallacy and in this case a falsification. Instead of posting for facts you are posting to impress, big mistake. you pretend the link does not thread back which is another variant of the infinite ignorance fallacy. I posted a citation proving you do not understand english any better than your pals that think they can win an argument by frama and name calling, only to enjoy the agony of defeat after hundreds of pages of their garbage posts. Any quote has your name on it is YOUR quote, not fake, anyone who changes someones quote using the board quote function gets strung up by the balls. Cant get much more dishonest than your claims against me.

 

As with your previous basic misstatements of logic (such as your continued inability to understand the conjunction elimination . . . which would literally clear up all of this if you would just try to digest the videos I gave you), you are blatantly misrepresenting the facts. You provided two quotes that you attributed to me. I asked you for the source, you pointed to a link that did not contain those quotes. Do I need to dumb it down further?

 

your fake premise provided no means of determining a neutral could exist, its a division fallacy, fraud.
you need to follow the link I provided or give a valid explanation why you claimed that a statement of negative belief is a not an assertion.

 

Then you didn't understand the premise. Which kind of tracks with your inability to understand the conjunction elimination and other basic logic concepts.

You, once again, are misrepresenting my post. I asked you to quote me saying "a statement of negative belief is not an assertion," something you actually tried attributing to me as a quote, which was particularly dishonest, and you failed.

 

I did respond and I showed your failure. It is there for everyone to see. That you think you "won" something is ridiculous. Only you believe that.

 

it was an analogy, are you trying to now claim you do not know even know what you were talking about?

 

I posted citations that proved your lack of comprehension of the english language, yeh I won! You posted no CITATION(s) to the contrary!

 

Good thing the terms as he used them aren't all mutually exclusive then.

 

He does know even know what he is talking about. It is you who is often incoherent and self-conflicting, not him. Not anyone else.

 

You posted a link to an article that you think may support your claims. It doesn't. And you even showed you didn't read it all. Bravo.

 

I understood the premise perfectly, false accusation, no citation
So you refuse to follow the link given to you then claim I am being dishonest, riiiiiight!

 

That's an interesting excuse. You accused me of saying something, then when confronted with the fact that you weren't telling the truth, you say "it was an analogy," then you blame me for your own misrepresentation. That's talented.