I thought your god was keeping you safe

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I don't quite have the ability to really respond well ...
Cheers.

You don't actually need too much.  It's just the samo samo we've been hearing from these  ers for years.

Well... we don't quite know that.

G G has only just started posting and I, for one, don't cast aspersions.

Reading other people's though trains is much more fun.

[Guard of Guardians]

Dude, you're just one more deluded creationist.

If logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence for you, then yes, a lot of evidence would necessarily be off the table, though certainly not all.  However, I think that is an entirely naive to take, and I mean that in the most serious and non-pejorative sense.  Think of all of the areas of life that would be destroyed by that way of thinking.  Legal proceedings would come to an absolute hault overnight.  Even our personal relationships would suffer, as we wouldn't be able to reason from a persons behavior toward us, to their ultimate intent.  If there is no evidential value in logical reasoning, much of human existence would end up falling apart.  It is possible that I'm deluded, but as of yet, I have no evidence to suggest that is so.  Those who hold positions other than my own are showing themselves to be rude, crass, and generally uninterested in discussion.  Instead, they make assertions, deride, and name-call.  In that context, I'm not tempted to think of myself as deluded.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Sorry for not quickly quoting your previous G G but.... I really don't think your assertions follow along well from, "If logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence."

Cheers.

[Lemon Curry]

At work.

You don't actually need too much.  It's just the samo samo we've been hearing from these  ers for years.

Well... we don't quite know that.

G G has only just started posting and I, for one, don't cast aspersions.

Reading other people's though trains is much more fun.

Ah, so we are playing good cop, bad cop are we?

Who's playing bad cop? You or me.

---

Dude, you're just one more deluded creationist.

I'm not tempted to think of myself as deluded.

Really?

Trust me, you are.

[Guard of Guardians]

At work.

Sorry for not quickly quoting your previous G G but.... I really don't think your assertions follow along well from, "If logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence."

Cheers.

Yes, well, I was asked to list a few of them.  I was assuming that because I was listing the arguments virtually by title and not by content, that anyone reading it would realize that when talking about logical reasoning from true premises was referring to the content of the actual arguments listed, rather than the list itself, which didn't actually include the content of the argument.  Is that a crazy thing to expect?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well... we don't quite know that.

G G has only just started posting and I, for one, don't cast aspersions.

Reading other people's though trains is much more fun.

Ah, so we are playing good cop, bad cop are we?

Who's playing bad cop? You or me.

Well... I see myself following on along the lines more of Patric Swayze in 'Road house' of "Be nice...... Untill it's time to not be nice."

[Guard of Guardians]

At work.

Sorry for not quickly quoting your previous G G but.... I really don't think your assertions follow along well from, "If logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence."

Cheers.

Yes, well, I was asked to list a few of them.  I was assuming that because I was listing the arguments virtually by title and not by content, that anyone reading it would realize that when talking about logical reasoning from true premises was referring to the content of the actual arguments listed, rather than the list itself, which didn't actually include the content of the argument.  Is that a crazy thing to expect?  I didn't realize that each argument's content had to be given in detail.  If I did that, would all of the objections and refutations to those objections have to be listed too?  I'm expecting genuine engagement...which is I think the biggest problem.  My apologies.

---

At work.

Ah, so we are playing good cop, bad cop are we?

Who's playing bad cop? You or me.

Well... I see myself following on along the lines more of Patric Swayze in 'Road house' of "Be nice...... Untill it's time to not be nice."

I just try to be nice.  I rarely find times when not being nice is even necessary.  After all, we aren't in a bar.  We're in a chatroom.

[madog]

If logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence for you, then yes, a lot of evidence would necessarily be off the table, 

Logical reasoning is acceptable, as long as you don't smuggle shit into the arguement .....

I asked you to refute I can walk on water ..... and you failed, that doesn't prove I can walk on water.

Maybe use yours and your friends arugument style can prove I can walk on water ...


1) Whatever falls can be higher

2) If there is nothing solid higher then its floating

3) If you can float then you can walk on water

4) Therefore Madog can walk on water

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Sorry for not quickly quoting your previous G G but.... I really don't think your assertions follow along well from, "If logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence."

Cheers.

Yes, well, I was asked to list a few of them.  I was assuming that because I was listing the arguments virtually by title and not by content, that anyone reading it would realize that when talking about logical reasoning from true premises was referring to the content of the actual arguments listed, rather than the list itself, which didn't actually include the content of the argument.  Is that a crazy thing to expect?

I did note your list.

I also see other's have offered rebuttals already, so there's that as well.

Plus, it would seem, that your points specifically rest on your premises actually being , y'know, correct..... Or, better yet, 'Real'.

Cheers.

[Lemon Curry]

Yes, well, I was asked to list a few of them.  I was assuming that because I was listing the arguments virtually by title and not by content, that anyone reading it would realize that when talking about logical reasoning from true premises was referring to the content of the actual arguments listed, rather than the list itself, which didn't actually include the content of the argument.  Is that a crazy thing to expect?  I didn't realize that each argument's content had to be given in detail.  If I did that, would all of the objections and refutations to those objections have to be listed too?  I'm expecting genuine engagement...which is I think the biggest problem.  My apologies.

---

At work.


Well... I see myself following on along the lines more of Patric Swayze in 'Road house' of "Be nice...... Untill it's time to not be nice."

I just try to be nice.  I rarely find times when not being nice is even necessary.  After all, we aren't in a bar.  We're in a chatroom.

Believing in christardology based on the horse shit you call evidence and logic isn't nice.  It's insulting.

The human race, in spite of everything, has come a long way.  It deserves better.