|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 5, 2013 4:14:40 GMT 10
There are uneducated people out there with access to the Internet who want attention, but I am not obligated to give it to them. We are not obligated to listen to abusive people who don’t know what they are talking about. I am not obligated to post comments from people who refuse to make objective claims or who refuse to support objective claims with arguments and evidence. And I’m not obligated to engage in discussions with them, either.
If I don't respond to your post, as I am not obligated to do so, assume this declaration as it stands.
I have better things to be doing with my time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Jan 6, 2013 19:15:08 GMT 10
How is he chucking a wobbly?
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 6, 2013 19:31:43 GMT 10
Our only obligation is to God.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 6, 2013 20:59:19 GMT 10
Ever noticed how Veritas chucks a wobbly whenever he loses arguments on many fronts? ;D Too many spot fires to put out I guess.  Got it in one. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 6, 2013 22:03:31 GMT 10
It is nice that Skippy is away too... nearly a whole week without a "Jihadwatch" diatribe.  I look forward to Skippy's return, and therefore a return to rational debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 7, 2013 4:57:03 GMT 10
Ever noticed how Veritas chucks a wobbly whenever he loses arguments on many fronts? ;D Too many spot fires to put out I guess. More of a disclaimer. I'd have to experience a rational argument, before I could lose to one. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 7, 2013 6:47:27 GMT 10
You haven't made one yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 7, 2013 11:44:00 GMT 10
Our only obligation is to God. Matt 22:36-40 I think the quote from Matt's evangelical namesake skewers what Hilarious Fruitcake Ignoramus Matt just said.  Strewth Matt you make it so easy to expose your mantras as ignorance and stupidity  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 13, 2013 4:09:36 GMT 10
You haven't made one yet. No, I just haven't made one that your feeble mind can retain. -There's a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 13, 2013 8:08:36 GMT 10
You haven't made one yet. No, I just haven't made one that your feeble mind can retain. -There's a difference. Obviously I am not anally retentive enought to retain your unproven arguments. Found God yet? Produce proof of him/her. Then you will have an argument. How are you going with proving that woman came from man's rib? You keep avoiding that one. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 17, 2013 6:33:02 GMT 10
No, I just haven't made one that your feeble mind can retain. -There's a difference. Obviously I am not anally retentive enought to retain your unproven arguments. That's because you believe everything needs to be proven to be valid. (Neglecting that very assumption itself, is void of proof, thus making it a contradiction) I don't make it a habit to answer nonsensical queries, and that's why you are never answered on those fronts. When you realize why you can't prove the "sound or taste of Red" to me, you'll understand why I can't prove God physically, to you. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 17, 2013 21:21:54 GMT 10
Where has anyone asked for proof of the sound or taste of the colour red? More obfuscation from you. We've asked for proof of god, something YOU believe in. Why do you believe in something you can't prove exists?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 5:56:25 GMT 10
Where has anyone asked for proof of the sound or taste of the colour red? More obfuscation from you. We've asked for proof of god, something YOU believe in. Why do you believe in something you can't prove exists? Why do you? After all, you believe that there is no proof, prior to posing that question. *And you had no evidence to come to that conclusion.* In fact, I'd go so far to say that some of the most important notions humanity has is universally accepted with no proof at all. Logic and the scientific method, for instance. Would you abandon those, simply because you have no proof for their validity? Obfuscation? No, my friend. You entered the conversation already confused. You confused correlations the moment you asked for natural proof of something that is essentially above nature. Your challenge has no answer nor will it ever, because it doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 10:29:37 GMT 10
I believe there is no proof because none has been offered, especially by you.
Until you do, you are basically irrelevant.
How are those ribs going by the way, you seem totally incapable of answering that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:04:37 GMT 10
So what you are saying, is you haven't seen any proof.
That's a tad bit different than saying there is none, isn't it?
So now you should be able to concede there may be proof to God's existence outside of your knowledge.
Welcome to agnosticism!
We're getting closer to converting you, my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:18:01 GMT 10
No, I also don't believe there is ANY proof as not a single person has been able to offer any.
So the odds for Atheism are very much in my favour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:24:51 GMT 10
There you go using that "believe" word again.
What happened to your dogmatic a priori adherence to "proof" before belief?
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:29:47 GMT 10
When you offer proof, I will change my belief.
Until then, you are backing a loser.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:34:47 GMT 10
When you offer a reason why I should require physical proof for a non physical being, then you shall have it.
Until then, you are a loser.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:39:48 GMT 10
I am not dumb enough to believe in a non physical being, and you reckon I'm the loser?
Good work!
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:40:44 GMT 10
No.
You are not smart enough to extend beyond your adherence to your 5 senses, and that's why I reckon you are a loser.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:59:31 GMT 10
Well, that sixth sense of yours is giving you false information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 29, 2013 11:07:56 GMT 10
...and common.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 29, 2013 11:09:19 GMT 10
Well, that sixth sense of yours is giving you false information. Are we to also assume that you have no capacity for objective reasoning, slarti? You've provided no physical proof of it. |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 29, 2013 22:15:27 GMT 10
Objective reasoning can give you only ONE answer.
There is no God.
|
|
