(July 7, 2009 at 7:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 7, 2009 at 5:30 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Read the thing I posted to you before (the link), the one we disagreed on ... THAT is why I think agnosticism is a bunch of crap.

I read it, and I presented a rebuttal that you refused to discuss then. They are open to your "rebuttal" now.

Actually we agreed to disagree so no, I really don't want to get into that with you again thanks all the same.

Kyu

(July 8, 2009 at 9:33 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Actually we agreed to disagree so no, I really don't want to get into that with you again thanks all the same.

And...he chickens out again!

So let me get this straight. A previous argument re-emerges in this thread, I ask some questions. You point to another thread where you supposedly "answered" them. I point to the fact that I presented rebuttals that you never answered, choosing to instead just forget the argument. You use this as some kind of excuse not to answer them this time.

Well, if that's the way you think discussions go, so be it. I'll just assume that your apparent inability to respond to any of my rebuttals is you admitting without actually admitting that you are wrong (you are far too arrogant to do that right?).

No, let us get it staright the way it was Adrian ... you and I don't see to eye to eye (on many things it seems) but that one was an argument we hard covered several times and I was as bored with it then as I am now.

WE DON'T AGREE ON WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS AND OUR ARGUMENTS BOIL DOWN TO "I'M RIGHT", "NO, I'M RIGHT", "NO,NO I'M RIGHT", "NO,NO, NO, I'M RIGHT" ... WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT?

Kyu

(July 8, 2009 at 2:52 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: WE DON'T AGREE ON WHAT AGNOSTICISM IS AND OUR ARGUMENTS BOIL DOWN TO "I'M RIGHT", "NO, I'M RIGHT", "NO,NO I'M RIGHT", "NO,NO, NO, I'M RIGHT" ... WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT?

I agree, it's like arguing with a brick wall, and the brick wall has full access to both a dictionary and the original essay that Huxley wrote...

Agnosticism is something, and what you think it is, is not what philosophers define it as, or what Huxley himself defined it as. You just don't like a specific mis-definition, and have decided that every other definition of the word is therefore wrong, and that the word is therefore idiotic.

Your arguments may be of the form "No, I'm right", but mine actually attempt to explain the word, your misconception, and why agnosticism makes perfect sense. You don't seem to actually like reading my arguments though, perhaps because reading them would involve a pathetic attempt at refuting them, which would eventually end up with you admitting you were in err.

The only argument you made that has had any impact on me (on this subject) is the derivation from Greek (or whatever it was) but it still doesn't change the essence of my argument and agnosticism is still a wishy washy pile of crap.

Kyu

Welcome ladies and gentlemen...and this is round 264....or 265....well I've lost count there
Both men still in the ring....referee left at round 64....well, you all saw that one...the referee going down in that round from sheer exhaustion..poor soul
So the fight has been....well ehh...going back and forth kinda stuff...you know...move a little over here...move a little over there...not giving in an inch either way
And much shouting with it too..not the yelling of the spectators I mean...there aren't any left.....and possibly you all have left me long time ago and this TV report I'm giving is seen by nobody...so I can open up now folks...'cause you aint there any more...
And thank god he does not exist so this fight just logically can't go on foreever...I hope folks...'cause
I pray folks!!..it better be over soon 'cause if not for long I'll be wetting my pants real soon...logically...


I propose a truce, it's called 'durable disagreement', and it is OK

(July 8, 2009 at 10:37 am)Tiberius Wrote: I'll just assume that your apparent inability to respond to any of my rebuttals is you admitting, without actually admitting, that you are wrong ...

It would be quite ironic for me to defend Kyuuketsuki, and I don't think he needs anyone to come to his defense, but I did want to interject with a point here. To conclude that someone is unable to respond based on the fact that they refuse to respond is non-sequitur. It just doesn't follow.

But you're not alone. He has refused to answer my question, too (Msg. #68).

(July 9, 2009 at 1:36 am)Arcanus Wrote: To conclude that someone is unable to respond based on the fact that they refuse to respond is non-sequitur. It just doesn't follow.

I didn't say mean he was unable, I said that he is far too arrogant to admit when he is wrong. The words "your apparent inability" were meant as a jab, nothing else. It was a thinly veiled insult designed to either get him to actually participate in a discussion on (heaven forbid) a discussion forum, or to admit that he cannot come up with any rebuttals because I am right.

Twice he has now refused to say why my points are "wrong", citing that he just doesn't want to respond. That might absolve him in some people's minds, but not in mine.

Personally when I stop responding is because I am getting bored with the topic or the person I am dealing with is an asshole and it is just not worth my effort anymore. So not getting a response may be a reflection upon yourself, but I, like you, like to think that "I won."

(July 9, 2009 at 7:22 am)Tiberius Wrote: [...]on (heaven forbid) a discussion forum,[...]

I forbid heaven too Adrian. Cos I'm an atheist . Good on ya lol

My bolding of course...I liked your choice of language there LOL.

EvF