Did you expect anything but a useless platitude, Rhythm?

(May 12, 2013 at 5:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: In your irrational fantasy of course Ryan.

As my post did make the assumption that the Christian God was real, that was indeed an irrational fantasy.

No, FNM, I didn't expect anything more, but I like to hold out hope that somebody, someday, might offer more. We'd still have to assign some measure of accuracy to the explanation but at least it wouldn't be as useless - even as a proposition- as what we've been treated to thusfar.

(May 12, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(May 12, 2013 at 5:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: In your irrational fantasy of course Ryan.

As my post did make the assumption that the Christian God was real, that was indeed an irrational fantasy.

Everything you say seems to be an irrational fantasy Ryan. No change there.

(May 12, 2013 at 3:04 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 12, 2013 at 2:40 pm)Ryantology Wrote: As my post did make the assumption that the Christian God was real, that was indeed an irrational fantasy.

Everything you say seems to be an irrational fantasy Ryan. No change there.

Your disapproval fills me with pride, frAud0.

(May 12, 2013 at 10:30 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 7:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Easy question Rhydd. Human potential is maximised given a just and loving God. Show me how that works any other way, and I'll show you another way of describing god.

How so, and in what way does god explain anything about human potential (just what is human potential anyway?) in the first place, let alone some "maximized" value of the same?

Did you really think that adding the word god to a sentence explained anything that preceded it? I think, Frodo, that if it were so easy to explain anything via god - you would have done a better job of it. By better, I mean any job at all - at the very least.

You're simply refusing to address the point Rhydd. I can't pull your head out of the sand, that effort has to come from you. I have you on ignore and for very good reason. You've been presented with the reasoning, but simply refuse to address it. As your ignorance is no concern if mine, I'm going to let you get back to it. Take care.

Fr0d0, your statement was vacuous. There's nothing of substance to address.

Fr0d0, what the fuck are you on about? Do you have an inverted definition of rationality or something?

(May 12, 2013 at 3:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're simply refusing to address the point Rhydd. I can't pull your head out of the sand, that effort has to come from you. I have you on ignore and for very good reason. You've been presented with the reasoning, but simply refuse to address it. As your ignorance is no concern if mine, I'm going to let you get back to it. Take care.

What point? What is it with you and your fellow apologists, always blaming the recipient when you've failed to deliver some message that you insist is there? I have never once been presented with any "reasoned" "reasonable" or even remotely "reason-like" -anything- that entailed an invocation of an existent god. Not once, not by you, not by anyone. I don't actually think that anything like that has ever been presented in all of human experience - but I leave open the possibility that my experience is just not enough to conclude that - so I keep asking you and yours to provide what you claim to possess. With the amount of people claiming possession, one would hope that at least one of you wasn't such a dismal failure.

You can't even elaborate upon your own statement, can you? You realized that yourself and that's why you decided to blather on about having me on ignore, isn't it? The statement doesn't even work for you, you can't even describe how god explains "human potential" or it's "maximized" whatever-the-fuck-one-can-mutter... -to you-, let alone whether or not it actually describes or explains anything beyond the urge to make the claim...

@Rhythm:

Please tell me what you have done to get on Fr0d0's ignore list. I keep trying different things, but so far I have not been similarly blessed. Is there a secret to it?