(August 21, 2017 at 9:31 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(August 21, 2017 at 9:27 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: So were doing this again . Are you a masochist road ?
Wheren't you one of those who was criticizing me for not discussing?
But if you have something to add, or think part of what I said is incorrect...let's here it.
No, we were criticizing you for being a coward and challenging us to do this when you're the only one who thinks this or cares enough to continue trying to defend this position.
How about this:
Person A makes an assertion. When asked how they know this, they say because person B says it's true. When person B is asked how they know what they said is true, they say person C verified its accuracy. Person C's reply leads to person D's testimony as its only source. See where I'm going with this? This is a two-fold dilemma. Not only can the word of a person not be sufficient to verify the word of another person, but there's no mechanism by which to verify whether any of them are correct independent of their assertions. This is an entirely circular process and adds no reliability or accuracy whatsoever. Since you seemed so keen on removing other evidence from the situation before, this renders YOUR assertion false.
Add to this the myriad reasons why a person's memory, perceptions, motivations, biases, etc., are reason to suspect their testimony is unreliable, and you've got a recipe for the worst sort of justification to believe anything. If you want to consider this evidence, by all means, go ahead and die choking on snake oil intended to make your pants happier after you drain your bank account to buy it from the schizophrenic homeless guy on the street corner. Because that's where your opinion on this would lead. Zero discretion here is all you get unless you dismiss this. Even in conjunction with evidence, at best it's unreliable because of all the aforementioned problems with human psychology. Even in a situation where something is 99% certain, this could never be used to push it up to 100%.
You want to keep making a big deal out of the stupidest thing you can, by all means, go ahead. But you know what you'll be doing? Ignoring ACTUAL EVIDENCE in favor of your preferred belief. Exactly the kind of thing that lets us know you're completely full of shit. Exactly the kind of thing you're trying to claim you're not doing, or are justified in doing. Doesn't work that way, kiddo. Your failure to understand this is the trouble here.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.