(April 18, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(April 17, 2014 at 10:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So first you insult my reply to the OP, then I reply to your implicit argument, then you insult me again. Yep that sounds real mature. Right...
Where's the insult there? You decided what my position was without so much as consulting me, and then based your entire argument around a premise you have no evidence that I believe; that's literally the thing you did. Calling you on it might make you look bad, but commentating on what actually happened isn't insulting. Perhaps if you think it impugned your reputation you should look a little closer at your own actions; I didn't ask you to demand I think a certain way, after all.
Besides, even my first post to you wasn't an insult, so much as it was highlighting the fact that your entire argument is based in an imaginary position you command everyone else to hold, and a problem that only exists if we not only agree to hold that position, but to then also agree to the existence of another unjustified concept in god, and a requirement that we need a third unjustified claim in "objective meaning" in order to be rationally consistent.
Pointing out that we aren't obligated to play your game isn't an insult, Chad.
Then my apologies. I thought you were a materialist based on our many discussions.
