RE: There is no "I" in "You"
May 19, 2016 at 5:58 pm
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2016 at 6:04 pm by quip.)
(May 19, 2016 at 5:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: [quote='quip' pid='1278566' dateline='1463694043']Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.
Liar? I fail to follow that sublime logic.
Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason? Apparently not. We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective? Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection? Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.
[/quote]
Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.
Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.
Quote:[quote]I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless.
I told you that I'm saying nothing at all, nonsense, woo.
One wonders why your so insentient on expecting otherwise.
[/quote]
That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not! Would you make up my mind?
(May 19, 2016 at 5:50 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: [quote='quip' pid='1278555' dateline='1463693464']
Though Descartes has been historically, thoroughly questioned that's not what's being question here.
You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.
Have you any thoughts on my post?
[/quote]
No it doesn't.
(May 19, 2016 at 5:58 pm)quip Wrote: [quote='Rhythm' pid='1278586' dateline='1463694618']
Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.
Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason? Apparently not. We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective? Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection? Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.
Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.
Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.
Quote:I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless.
That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not! Would you make up my mind?
(May 19, 2016 at 5:50 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.No, it doesn't.
[/quote]
(May 19, 2016 at 5:58 pm)quip Wrote: [quote='Rhythm' pid='1278586' dateline='1463694618']
Unsurprising....but let me lay it out for you.
Are you here to present a paradoxical riddle which demonstrates the inadequacy of reason? Apparently not. We still haven't seen one, or even an attempt.
Are you here to provide a reasonable doubt to the atheist perspective? Apparently not, because reason is inadequate...and I haven't seen you even mention any gods.
Are you here to serve as a springboard for debate and introspection? Apparently not, because you refuse to participate by stating exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, or suggesting any focus for introspection.
Sorry if I'm unavailable to rationally enumerate the inadequacy of reason for you.
Though it takes two to Tango...ya keep refusing all requests to dance.I'm still not convinced of the thought processes that concluded with "liar" here..but I digress.
Quote:I expect otherwise because you have made many claims to "otherwise"............and I expect more than pointless trolling regardless.
That seems to be wholly directed by you. You claimed I was saying nothing...I simply agreed with you, yet now I'm not! Would you make up my mind?
(May 19, 2016 at 5:50 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: You appear to have ignored the rest of my post which addressed your primary question, in favour of passing comments regarding a subordinate clause which was only there to head off a common attempt to skirt my statement.
Have you any thoughts on my post?
No it doesn't. I'm not attempting to ascertain or refute the existence of the self.
