A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Statler Waldorf]

---

First, you need to learn how to read English. I said that I never claimed to know how to differentiate the two, not that I had no idea how. Even if I had an iron-clad method of differentiating the two, it would be irrelevant to your claim and your proof, unless your proof and mine were the same. If I were to accept your analogy, then a person who can't understand plain English has no business claiming their words make sense. But the truth is your analogy about mathematical proof was little more than a stalking horse for an ad hominem argument. As a mathematician I can tell you there are many more ways to go wrong than to go right, and it is easier to see what's wrong than what's right. Falsification is easy, if the theory is faulty; it's dreaming up valid theory that takes brains. If you feel my analysis was incompetent, show, don't tell. Your silly allusions to my incompetence are tiresome. I stand by my analysis, and you've yet to give anyone here a reason to doubt it, aside from your, "you're obviously too stupid to appreciate the brilliance of my argument" argument above, which as noted is entirely beside the point as it was based on a misreading of my text.
(Not that I'm going to be impressed by an ad hominem argument even if based on an accurate reading, but stooping to an ad hominem based on a misreading just makes you look stupid.)

Now you're welcome to engage my arguments more substantially, and I'll be more than happy to reply in kind. But your current behavior all too closely follows the comical theist habit of chanting victory as you make a hasty retreat from the field of battle.

---

I like how you tried to ride into this discussion acting like you were some pillar of diplomacy and intellect, but when I poked at you a bit and revealed you didn’t really know anything you blow up and start slinging mud. Very typical for these parts unfortunately. I will stand by my original point, if you can’t demonstrate the correct way to determine what is and is not a religion, then you have no logical basis to say the way I did it was somehow incorrect. I will give you another real world example since you didn’t follow my mathematics one.
Somebody challenges me to prove that Organism A is actually a fish. I began by showing that legally it was defined as a fish, morphologically it was built like a fish and behaviorally it behaved like a fish- therefore it is a fish. Then here you come riding into the discussion…
You: “I am sorry SW; you can’t use those criteria to prove that the organism is a fish”
Me: “Well I disagree, this is the criteria biologists use, but out of curiosity, what criteria should I be using?”
You: “Oh I never claimed to know what criteria should be used.”
…and you say that I am the one looking stupid here? Give me a break.