what being apart from the law means.

[FallentoReason]

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?

Yes, that you have strawmanned your way through it. It has nothing to do with trying to fit in. I've simply highlighted a very simple observation that the individual is able to feed to themselves what they require/expect of their particular belief. A/S/K/ is nothing but the elaborate trick of the con man, given that any religious person can tell me about their experiences with their god.

It's a simple concept that you can't grasp, because you won't for a second admit that you could be wrong -- that you are actually speaking to yourself like you [most likely] see people of other religions speaking to themselves because their god is false.

Said every religion ever invented.

Said you.

Unfortunately, this doesn't buy you a special token that excludes your particular religion from the possibility of being a perfect con. Still waiting for justification as to why I should consider your variation of how to communicate with God over other religions' ways as the true way.

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?

I can give an example of a relationship with 100% faithfulness that doesn't work: your wife comes home at very irregular hours of the night. Because you're so faithful, you don't for one second ask yourself that she's sleeping with other men.

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.

Fail. I'm a Deist.

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.)

Your delusions are proof that you can't properly grasp the points being discussed, just like you failed to realise I'm a Deist.

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.

The fallacy has to do with excluding someone from a particular group as having never been a "true" member of that group. You do the exact same thing, but with theological methods such as A/S/K. People continually keep telling you they have tried when they were a Christian, but you keep telling them they were doing it all wrong i.e. they never tried out the method properly. Not only are you being fallacious, but you're being arrogant by claiming that YOU know the way and we don't. You are literally stripping the former believer of everything they used to stand for and discrediting the sincere faith they used to have. That's low.

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?

Your assumption here is that people are thirsty to begin with. I can tell you right now the only one thirsty is yourself. I don't know your past, but I do know of more people than I can count who are Christian because they have had a traumatic experience/mental issues/lost a loved one... basically it's a crutch they need and they thirst for a resolution -- an answer to their suffering. I personally thirst for truth, but what you offer is too vague, too mysterious, too ambiguous for it to be called a self-evident truth.