what being apart from the law means.

[Drich]

I forgive you, as long as you understand the fundamental point though; that trivialities in someone's life are irrelevant. We're discussing the specifics from a philosophical point, meaning that particular events in our life are undermined by the fact that we could have been wrong from the very beginning, regardless of the outcome.

..And if a given philosophical point was literally designed to dismiss God, then what? Do i surrender my ablity to think so I can attain the status of being philosophically prudent to simply follow what the group thinks to be sound reasoning? Do you not see anything wrong with this philosophy?

Perfect. Then it seems like you agree with what everyone here is saying; that the believer fulfils their own needs.

Asked and answered like three times now.

Said every religion ever invented.

Said you.

Agreed, if your particular god actually existed. More to the point though, for the delusion to persist, one must keep overriding reason with faith.

Can you give an example of a healthy relationship where one person remain in a constiant state of unfaithfulness, and the other remains in said relationship?

This is what I was referring to in my opening paragraph. In that what if a ' philosophical point" was designed to exclude God? It seems you have over looked a great deal of Legitmate "philosophical points" to come to your final conclusion that excludes the existance of God.

Your fallacious reasoning gets tiring...(Those are actually your words here but I thought I could borrow them to undergird the Evidence I have provided that shows your actual "fallacious reasoning" in action.)

You need to cut out this modified use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your Calling.. you know what never mind. I wrong you by bring your personal stuff into the conversation, when it was not warranted, so let me give you a pass on your 'modified no true scotsman.' That said take the time to look up that fallacy before you "modify it" and try and use it again.

Throughout these threads, I persistently keep seeing you tell people they're doing it wrong and that you have the True Method™ for whatever might be the discussion at the time. I.e. the person didn't achieve the desired outcome, therefore the "Drich Verdict" is that you've got it all wrong and that Drich clearly has it right, always.

If there were people literally dying of thirst, and they were all standing before a water fountain that only works if the knob is turned clockwise, but the person in front dying of thirst will only turn it counter clock wise, and as a result get no water. Angered, he turns to the crowd and say to move on, the water fountain is broken.. Isn't it the responsiablity of the person who knows how to get water from the fountain to say something to the rest? Even if it makes ALL of them look foolish for turning the knob the wrong way? even if the rest judge him as proud, for being able to drink when the rest are dying of thirst? to what end is this person obligated to help those who want to drink the water from the fountain? Or is it ok to quitely drink while others die of thirst?