(October 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Actually, I concisely demonstrated the Muslim god as self-contradictory, and if you doubted me, I further challenged you to ask any devout Muslim if he/she did not define their god as both good and evil.

What? Do you think you're talking to a Muslim here? I agree with you that Islam is absurd. My problem is you don't apply the same critical thinking to your own religion.

Quote:As to your guess concerning my beliefs, (if indeed what will probably be your straw man definition of what you think are my beliefs are anywhere near accurate) you'll have to demonstrate for me the contradiction you imply exists before i can comment.

I did. Three distinct persons all in one being. You don't see the contradiction?

Please do explain the Trinity to me. I wish you better success than Ryft's attempt.

(October 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Please do explain the Trinity to me. I wish you better success than Ryft's attempt.

I'd quit now unless you have a pile driver.

(October 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I'd quit now unless you have a pile driver.

Are you suggesting an inherent unwillingness to listen?

No, we do listen. So go ahead, if you please.

(October 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Also I didn't say the grape jelly created the universe, do keep up.

Oh, but you did. Right at the point you defended the spouting of the jelly axiom by claiming my opposed axiom was "also irrational.

You willingly placed yourself on the side of Jelly creators. Do you worship your creator?

Do try to keep up with context, and stop copying my admonishments. Be original for jelly's sake. (Or should the be capital 'J' jelly?)

(October 8, 2011 at 5:28 pm)objectivitees Wrote:

(October 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Also I didn't say the grape jelly created the universe, do keep up.

Oh, but you did. Right at the point you defended the spouting of the jelly axiom by claiming my opposed axiom was "also irrational.

You willingly placed yourself on the side of Jelly creators. Do you worship your creator?

Do try to keep up with context, and stop copying my admonishments. Be original for jelly's sake. (Or should the be capital 'J' jelly?)

Also irrational means it's both bollocks, not that I side with grape jelly.

How could you not get that??

(October 8, 2011 at 5:25 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: No, we do listen. So go ahead, if you please.

No. I came here to see if rhythm has an actual argument against presuppositional argumentation applied to theological philosophies.

And do not put words in other people mouths please.

(October 8, 2011 at 5:31 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: How could you not get that??

The grammar in your text does not allow for that interpretation.

(October 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm)objectivitees Wrote:

(October 8, 2011 at 5:31 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: How could you not get that??

The grammar in your text does not allow for that interpretation.

You said: your view is irrational (or something similar to rhythm)

I said: No more than your's.

You somehow conclude that I think that the grape jelly was more likely. You should read more carefully. Clearly says I think any theism is as likely or unlikely as grape jelly.

How fucking hard is that?

---

I was not defending rhythyms belief in jelly grape God, but ridiculing you belief that his belief is irrational, and yet you are a theist who's religion has no proof of anything it claims, just like rhythms.