(October 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm)5thHorseman Wrote:(October 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm)objectivitees Wrote:(October 8, 2011 at 5:31 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: How could you not get that??
The grammar in your text does not allow for that interpretation.
You said: your view is irrational (or something similar to rhythm)
I said: No more than your's.
You somehow conclude that I think that the grape jelly was more likely. You should read more carefully. Clearly says I think any theism is as likely or unlikely as grape jelly.
How fucking hard is that?
I was not defending rhythyms belief in jelly grape God, but ridiculing you belief that his belief is irrational, and yet you are a theist who's religion has no proof of anything it claims, just like rhythms.
You clearly cannot fathom the fact that your response was made in respect to my retort to another post, and carried with it a presupposition that my view is not irrational. If you then attack my retort by aligning with the original comment, contextual hermeneutics require that you be consistent with my presupposition. Since my presupposition was that my view is not irrational, your view accordingly must be expressed within that context and therefore aligned with the opposing theory, which in this case was "jelly created...", rationally implying you also believe in a creator. (jelly)
How stinking hard was that?
By the way... stop cussing, it makes it look like you don't have a valid argument.
