A small thanks to the resident Theists..

[Esquilax]

Yes, you are sick by your own imperfection > needy of God. That's how it works.

Uh, hold on, because now you're making two assertions to cover for your first one: you haven't demonstrated that the imperfections I do have are a fault that harms anyone, nor have you justified this claim that my imperfections necessitate forgiveness from god.

Like I've said, you've had plenty of material presented on this forum that you've stubbornly rejected. You argue that black is white, just because something is said by a theist and there's the slightest chance you might lose an argument. That's called pride: a barrier to progress.

Yes, it simply can't be that your arguments are less convincing than you think they are, or that bland assertions of this and that don't count as evidence unless you already believe them to be true. No, I'm just being stubborn.

What did I say last time you presumed to tell me that I know you're right, and just don't want to admit it?

Oh, that's right: go fuck yourself.

In this subject, all you get is logical concepts to address. As long as you insist that these concepts must be empirically based, you will continue to fail to understand. Evidence you have been given. Understand it you do not.

I don't find repeated demands that I need forgiveness from god because I'm not perfect to be evidence at all. That's just a claim that you're making, and you can make it a million times- you probably will- and it'll never once become the evidence for itself.

[fr0d0]

I have demonstrated it and you have accepted it. You're currently still at odds with the dogma.

Take the slavery discussion. You've been comprehensively whooped over there but you don't have the grace to state that. You would still make the false claim that God condones slavery that is evil.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

As opposed to slavery that's okay?

[Esquilax]

I have demonstrated it and you have accepted it. You're currently still at odds with the dogma.

If you actually think that, then you're fucking deluded. You don't get to tell me what I think, asswipe.

Take the slavery discussion. You've been comprehensively whooped over there but you don't have the grace to state that. You would still make the false claim that God condones slavery that is evil.

And yet again, you demonstrate that it is you that has failed to understand the argument here.

I submit to you that there is no kind of slavery that is not evil.

[fr0d0]

As opposed to slavery that's okay?

Read the thread



No I'm just stating what you've said esq. If you don't think what you've said, then I can't help that.

Well I'm shocked that you're in denial

[Esquilax]

No I'm just stating what you've said esq. If you don't think what you've said, then I can't help that.

Well I'm shocked that you're in denial

So essentially your position now is just a retreat into intractable dickitude? You can't or won't actually argue the point, and so you're reduced to merely insisting that you've won over and over?

[fr0d0]

You don't seem to be able to see the point esq.

[Esquilax]

You don't seem to be able to see the point esq.

You would need to have a cogent point to see at all, Frods. You don't.

All you've got is incessant back-patting.

[Chas]

Yes, you are sick by your own imperfection > needy of God. That's how it works.

Like I've said, you've had plenty of material presented on this forum that you've stubbornly rejected. You argue that black is white, just because something is said by a theist and there's the slightest chance you might lose an argument. That's called pride: a barrier to progress.

In this subject, all you get is logical concepts to address. As long as you insist that these concepts must be empirically based, you will continue to fail to understand. Evidence you have been given. Understand it you do not.

No, that is not 'how it works', that is just your fantasy.

You have no evidence that any of that is true - you have never presented any actual evidence here.

The only barrier to progress here is your delusional thinking.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

Material generally implies physical proof.