(November 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But that's complete bollocks Alfred. Fucktards will indeed jump such an idiotic and illogical bandwagon. I challenge you to just think of anything at all that could constitute proof of God 'existing'. We Christians will sit on the sidelines laughing at the futility of your search. What you are saying is so illogical it stings... yet you claim to be part of the intellectual elite. Excuse me while I split my sides laughing

Where did I claim to be a member of the intellectual élite?

Of course God could have left us proof of his existence, and still could. He could just appear on TV and show us; he is after all supposed to be omnipotent.

But what I said has nothing to do with that. I said that you clearly hold your faith and your perception of 'fact' as of equal value. Thus the labels you attach to them are mere sophistry. You did not address this claim at all in your reply.

Quote:Where did I claim to be a member of the intellectual élite?

Don't worry about it mate.He makes that assumption about most people.Saves time as it's usually true, relatively speaking.

I will just agree to disagree with your last post fr0d0 or else this argument on your faith as fact will be one long ride on the ferris wheel of circular argumentation.

(November 20, 2009 at 5:16 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Where did I claim to be a member of the intellectual élite?

Don't worry about it mate.He makes that assumption about most people.Saves time as it's usually true, relatively speaking.

Hey Alfred welcome to the forums.

(November 20, 2009 at 8:53 am)chatpilot Wrote: Hey Alfred welcome to the forums.

Bene, mi fili. Blessings upon you and suchlike.

(November 20, 2009 at 4:55 am)Pope Alfred Wrote: Where did I claim to be a member of the intellectual élite?

It was the royal 'you' of course

(November 20, 2009 at 4:55 am)Pope Alfred Wrote: Of course God could have left us proof of his existence, and still could. He could just appear on TV and show us; he is after all supposed to be omnipotent.

He could've yes. But he didn't, and that isn't the way he's acted in history. There's a clue there somewhere.

(November 20, 2009 at 4:55 am)Pope Alfred Wrote: But what I said has nothing to do with that. I said that you clearly hold your faith and your perception of 'fact' as of equal value. Thus the labels you attach to them are mere sophistry. You did not address this claim at all in your reply.

And I addressed that as utter bollocks which it still is. That I declare a faith is fact, but my faith is not fact. It cannot be. I guess if you had two braincells to rub together you could work that out.

Nice to be a member of the intellectual élite without two braincells to rub together!

I understand very clearly what you are saying here, but you will not allow youself to take in what I, and others, have said about the equivalent values in your thinking.
I have found that people do from time to time stubbornly refuse to comprehend certain propositions. It seems to be a defence mechanism; they must keep out thoughts that would be damaging if recognised.

---

Nice to be a member of the intellectual élite without two braincells to rub together!

I understand very clearly what you are saying here, but you will not allow yourself to take in what I, and others, have said about the equivalent values in your thinking.
I have found that people do from time to time stubbornly refuse to comprehend certain propositions. It seems to be a defence mechanism: they must keep out thoughts that would be damaging if recognised.

So can you show me how, old fella, my nonfactual beliefs are actually factual? Sure I can defend the logic as workable... otherwise I wouldn't hold my beliefs. the actual faith bit remains solidly unprovable though. Unless you think it's not. Please elucidate.

(November 20, 2009 at 6:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So can you show me how, old fella, my nonfactual beliefs are actually factual? Sure I can defend the logic as workable... otherwise I wouldn't hold my beliefs. the actual faith bit remains solidly unprovable though. Unless you think it's not. Please elucidate.

See?
I give up on this one - nobody is ever going to make a faithhead face up to a proposition which might threaten them. We've all seen it so often on these forums. This one is not very important, so I'll simply abandon it. Anyone else fancy a try?