Let us deconstruct.
1) I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. Here you suggest incredulity.
2) I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." Here you restate the reasons for which you were questioned regarding your statements.
3) If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. Here you sidestep away from explaining your choice of rhetoric by pointing people at a more definitive version of what they suggested your sentiments might be.
4) And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Here you run off the rails by suggesting the opposite of what has been apparent.
5) Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. Here you show a sentimentality toward "possibilities," despite any need to do so based on the defensiveness you are now showing.
6) How can you not see this? Here you are making an appeal to reason based on insufficient evidence.
7) I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread. Apparently, many of us did, and reached the same state of concern regarding your line of reasoning.
8) Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say. Here you essentially say that your agenda is to be an agnostic (theist or atheist: hard to tell).
1) I do not understand how you think that I believe that Mark is reliable. Here you suggest incredulity.
2) I said "If mark is reliable..." or "I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable..." Here you restate the reasons for which you were questioned regarding your statements.
3) If I thought Mark was reliable, I would have said, "Mark is reliable," or "because Mark is reliable," but I did not say that because I do not believe that. Here you sidestep away from explaining your choice of rhetoric by pointing people at a more definitive version of what they suggested your sentiments might be.
4) And this is all apparent in what I wrote. Here you run off the rails by suggesting the opposite of what has been apparent.
5) Any argument I made was based on "ifs" because I was only trying to show possibilities. Here you show a sentimentality toward "possibilities," despite any need to do so based on the defensiveness you are now showing.
6) How can you not see this? Here you are making an appeal to reason based on insufficient evidence.
7) I would suggest that you go back and re-read this thread. Apparently, many of us did, and reached the same state of concern regarding your line of reasoning.
8) Just because you think that you don't have a need to prove that there are not any gods does not mean that there are not gods. That is all that I am trying to say. Here you essentially say that your agenda is to be an agnostic (theist or atheist: hard to tell).
Trying to update my sig ...
