IM SICK OF THESE DEBATES!!!

[leo-rcc]

Well it would help if I knew what the argument was.

America wasn't called America obviously, and even though no Europeans discovered it yet the continent itself did exist. But from the perspective of the Europeans at the time, going west seemed a good route to take to avoid the Cape of good hope to get to the indies and China. To them America indeed did not exist and none off its discoverers had any clue that it did exist.

So what is the point you are trying to make Zaki?

Strange you have to ask given the reasoning above. The continent tagged "America" existed regardless of what Europeans believed - BEFORE they discovered it. Is this not so? Its existence or non-existence has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Europeans believed or didn't believe at any time! That is what I'm saying. Do you get it now?

Unfortunately, your friends just don't get it.

I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?

[Zaki Aminu]

Zaki, please can you start an introduction thread telling us about you, it's quite standard and probably let us know a bit more about you than your first 80 posts.

Thanks

Harry.

Aren't my views the best introduction of myself? I value people on the basis of their worldview and the content of their character - not their social circumstances.

[5thHorseman]

Frodo, in another thread you said to epithemean(spelling) or another member about back slapping min's posts. Can you please do the same and take your tongue out of Zaki's arse. Your posts In the last week have been condescending to other members to say the least, being a senior member here you really should grow up and lead by example.

PS: I do understand that some members try to be antagonistic, but please rise above that.

[Zaki Aminu]

Well it would help if I knew what the argument was.

America wasn't called America obviously, and even though no Europeans discovered it yet the continent itself did exist. But from the perspective of the Europeans at the time, going west seemed a good route to take to avoid the Cape of good hope to get to the indies and China. To them America indeed did not exist and none off its discoverers had any clue that it did exist.

So what is the point you are trying to make Zaki?

Strange you have to ask given the reasoning above. The continent tagged "America" existed regardless of what Europeans believed - BEFORE they discovered it. Is this not so? Its existence or non-existence has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Europeans believed or didn't believe at any time! That is what I'm saying. Do you get it now?

Unfortunately, your friends just don't get it.

I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?

Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?

[5thHorseman]

Zaki, please can you start an introduction thread telling us about you, it's quite standard and probably let us know a bit more about you than your first 80 posts.

Thanks

Harry.

Aren't my views the best introduction of myself? I value people on the basis of their worldview and the content of their character - not their social circumstances.

Indeed, I'm not asking for personal details, just a quick intro into your beliefs/worldview etc, in it's own thread would be nice.

Thank you.

[Zaki Aminu]

Zaki, please can you start an introduction thread telling us about you, it's quite standard and probably let us know a bit more about you than your first 80 posts.

Thanks

Harry.

Aren't my views the best introduction of myself? I value people on the basis of their worldview and the content of their character - not their social circumstances.

Indeed, I'm not asking for personal details, just a quick intro into your beliefs/worldview etc, in it's own thread would be nice.

Thank you.

I don't know. I've already been accused of having an over-sized ego here. To start an entire thread devoted to me looks like confirming that to me. If you don't mind, I'd rather not do that.

[fr0d0]

Frodo, in another thread you said to epithemean(spelling) or another member about back slapping min's posts. Can you please do the same and take your tongue out of Zaki's arse. Your posts In the last week have been condescending to other members to say the least, being a senior member here you really should grow up and lead by example.

PS: I do understand that some members try to be antagonistic, but please rise above that.

My style is agressive 5th. I fight fire with fire. In this instance, I'm a matchstick confronting a full blown forest fire.

I defend Zaki because I see that he makes clear and concise points, has obviously a scientific mind and no one is daring to stand up to the plate and debate him honestly.

All we get are snide remarks led by the usual suspects. Should we not confront that?

My remark above is deadly serious. You guys are constantly saying that no one engages you, and then every time someone does, like our friend Zaki here, all you do is flame him off the forum.

I conclude that there is no serious case for the defense.

[leo-rcc]

I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?

Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?

Can you link me to where they claim that? I find that very hard to believe. Could it be just a simple miscommunication?

[5thHorseman]

Zaki, please can you start an introduction thread telling us about you, it's quite standard and probably let us know a bit more about you than your first 80 posts.

Thanks

Harry.

Aren't my views the best introduction of myself? I value people on the basis of their worldview and the content of their character - not their social circumstances.

Indeed, I'm not asking for personal details, just a quick intro into your beliefs/worldview etc, in it's own thread would be nice.

Thank you.

I don't know. I've already been accused of having an over-sized ego here. To start an entire thread devoted to me looks like confirming that to me. If you don't mind, I'd rather not do that.

Everyone starts with an intro thread, it's the polite thing to do. An entire thread devoted to you would be a good thing as this thread is off course.

I think you'll find(may not seem like that) we like new faces who can argue/debate as we have had some real trolls here recently, but we'd like to know your views first. And we can go on from there.

---

Frodo, in another thread you said to epithemean(spelling) or another member about back slapping min's posts. Can you please do the same and take your tongue out of Zaki's arse. Your posts In the last week have been condescending to other members to say the least, being a senior member here you really should grow up and lead by example.

PS: I do understand that some members try to be antagonistic, but please rise above that.

My style is agressive 5th. I fight fire with fire. In this instance, I'm a matchstick confronting a full blown forest fire.

I defend Zaki because I see that he makes clear and concise points, has obviously a scientific mind and no one is daring to stand up to the plate and debate him honestly.

All we get are snide remarks led by the usual suspects. Should we not confront that?

My remark above is deadly serious. You guys are constantly saying that no one engages you, and then every time someone does, like our friend Zaki here, all you do is flame him off the forum.

I conclude that there is no serious case for the defense.

Ok Frodo. Fair point. But can you point out someone bar Zaki who has actually engaged this forum please.

[Zaki Aminu]

I'm with you so far, but what has that got to do with anything?

Everything! Your friends were claiming that the existence of things depends solely on belief in their existence - and not something objective. That's just sheer nonsense, is it not?

Can you link me to where they claim that? I find that very hard to believe. Could it be just a simple miscommunication?

Or you could just check for yourself on the threads I've commented on. They're not that many.

Just to be clear: what is it exactly that you find hard to believe? That they reject my contention that the existence or non-existence of objective things is not dependent on anyone's beleifs? If they're not rejecting that, then we're all on the same page.