btw there is no god

[Dancing Mustard]

Let me esplain - the sultan, instead of arguing with a person, just calls them stupid, asinine, etc., etc., pats himself on the back, and congratulations himself on his intelligence.

...and yet, instead of attempting to rise above his alleged habit of making unflattering (though not necessarily untrue) generalisations, you seem to be keen to engage him in a race to the gutter.

Come on, if such behaviour is upsetting you so much then take a stand and refrain from it yourself. Just meeting alleged insults with a fresh wave of "complaining about insults insults" isn't going to get us anywhere.

In other words: practice what you preach.

[thelastpatriot]

I feel a SultanofSurreal reply here - I'll try to by psychic here

"So, you're saying you have the mental capacity of a four year old?"

How's that sultan?

Now let's go for personal attacks, nice. Maybe I should have used global warming for comparison.

Sarcasm, irony, and intelligent humor is lost in these fora.

Let me esplain - the sultan, instead of arguing with a person, just calls them stupid, asinine, etc., etc., pats himself on the back, and congratulations himself on his intelligence. Despite your cogent example, I was anticipating that sultan would make such a reply. Therefore, I beat him to the punch so to speak. I was making fun of HIM, not YOU. So, if it's a personal attack, it's a personal attack on Sultan (at least that's what it was meant to be). In sum... chill out, I'm defending you.

It was not taken personal, thanks for the explanation though

[jonesthecurl]

The monster in the closet becomes real at the point at which it can do something other than make the four-year old nervous.

If this is not the case, then I suggest you get the carpenters in to block off the secret passage which also has to be real.

[thegreekdog]

Let me esplain - the sultan, instead of arguing with a person, just calls them stupid, asinine, etc., etc., pats himself on the back, and congratulations himself on his intelligence.

...and yet, instead of attempting to rise above his alleged habit of making unflattering (though not necessarily untrue) generalisations, you seem to be keen to engage him in a race to the gutter.

Come on, if such behaviour is upsetting you so much then take a stand and refrain from it yourself. Just meeting alleged insults with a fresh wave of "complaining about insults insults" isn't going to get us anywhere.

In other words: practice what you preach.

It is difficult to argue with Sultan when he merely makes flame-type comments rather than argument. I have chosen to stoop to his level when dealing with him on occasion. I generally don't do it though. in any event, I was trying to be funny... didn't really work.

[jonesthecurl]

I thought it was quite funny, but to realy work it required sultan to say something...

[xelabale]

Is Dancing Mustard real? I can't find the name on birth records, passport lists, tax records, there is no NI number for this name, no address. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Dancing Mustard, no photo, no confirmed sighting. Why do we believe Dancing Mustard to be real? Strange...

[jonesthecurl]

If DM didn't exist it would be necessary for CC to invent him.

[thelastpatriot]

[



Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute deny that in your son's infant-mind the closet-monster seems very very real. But that isn't the same thing as it actually being real, it just means that he believes that state of affairs to be the case. They're two very very different things.

My sons "preschool" mind (infant stops at 12 months).

So If a person has a thought does that thought exist?

[xelabale]

Yes for it is a thought. If you think about a monster that doesn't mean the monster exists, it means the thought of the monster exists. This is exactly what DM has said twice and me once (sorry if I left anyone else out). Glad we cleared that up.

[thelastpatriot]

The monster in the closet becomes real at the point at which it can do something other than make the four-year old nervous.

If this is not the case, then I suggest you get the carpenters in to block off the secret passage which also has to be real.

Do you know any good ones?

[Dancing Mustard]

So If a person has a thought does that thought exist?

This is getting a bit silly now.

If you'd been paying attention, then you'd have noticed that both of my previous two posts to you have answered that question explicitly.

RTFT, then proceed from there.

[jonesthecurl]

The monster in the closet becomes real at the point at which it can do something other than make the four-year old nervous.

If this is not the case, then I suggest you get the carpenters in to block off the secret passage which also has to be real.

Do you know any good ones?

My friend Dave did a good job on my kitchen, though that strange knocking I hear from time to time may be the boogieman which he blocked up behind the wood panelling...

[thelastpatriot]

The monster in the closet becomes real at the point at which it can do something other than make the four-year old nervous.

If this is not the case, then I suggest you get the carpenters in to block off the secret passage which also has to be real.

Do you know any good ones?

My friend Dave did a good job on my kitchen, though that strange knocking I hear from time to time may be the boogieman which he blocked up behind the wood panelling...

He must of worked on my house also, lol

[thelastpatriot]

So If a person has a thought does that thought exist?

This is getting a bit silly now.

If you'd been paying attention, then you'd have noticed that both of my previous two posts to you have answered that question explicitly.

RTFT, then proceed from there.

There is nothing to proceed to. We have 2 different takes on it.

[Dancing Mustard]

There is nothing to proceed to. We have 2 different takes on it.

We really do...

The point is precisely that we have two different takes on 'it'. One of our takes (mine) can be demonstrated to be true via the application of logic and rational scrutiny, whereas the other (yours) can be easily demonstrated to be untenable and ridiculous.

The whole point is that we have two takes, I just spent two posts completely dismantling your take and showing that it was unworkable and inane. The place that we have to proceed to is the part where you either demonstrate where my logic has been in error, or concede that your proposition is unworkable.

Simply throwing up your hands and saying "uh, well I don't agree" doesn't magically make your opinion valid. You've been roundly demonstrated to be 100% wrong on this issue. You can't just 'buy out' and 'agree to disagree' here... to walk away at this point is to admit defeat and call your proposition false.

That's where we're at, and they're the two places that we could go to. We haven't reached some kind of moot point here. I've pointed out that you are wrong in every single way, you have failed to respond in any rational way. There is plenty of scope for us to proceed, this is not an impasse.

Now are you conceding, or do you have a rebuttal to make?


PS. Forgive me if that seems rude; it's just that it's mildly annoying to spend two posts logically dismantling a proposition that somebody seemed willing to argue about, only to have them tuck their tail between their legs and scurry off at the first sign of trouble, leaving nothing but a "well, er, I'm still right! Even though I can't explain why..." platitude as a sign-off.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I feel a SultanofSurreal reply here - I'll try to by psychic here

"So, you're saying you have the mental capacity of a four year old?"

How's that sultan?

cute, but you're really bad at impersonating me. my insults are way better

also, lastpatriot really is using a tremendously dumbed-down version of the ontological argument, not to mention a weird mutation of the appeal to majority. and that's hilarious enough on its own without awkwardly-worded snipes that only tenuously play off the content of his posts

[thegreekdog]

I feel a SultanofSurreal reply here - I'll try to by psychic here

"So, you're saying you have the mental capacity of a four year old?"

How's that sultan?

cute, but you're really bad at impersonating me. my insults are way better

also, lastpatriot really is using a tremendously dumbed-down version of the ontological argument, not to mention a weird mutation of the appeal to majority. and that's hilarious enough on its own without awkwardly-worded snipes that only tenuously play off the content of his posts

Yeah, you're way better than me.

By the way, I think religious faith does essentially boil down to having the mental capacity (or imagination) of a four year old. It's impossible (for me anyway) to explain why I believe in God and the teachings of the Catholic church in any logical way. In any event, my arguing on these points is pointless (for me anyway).

[Dancing Mustard]

Well f*ck me running...

The so-called LastPatriot is, in the face of perhaps the most comprehensive trouncing ever performed on the internet, just going to pull the "Nuh Uh" move and run away. How completely craven and pathetic.

The fact that a man who alleges to be raising a four-year old son does not have the good grace to admit "Actually, my original statement 'X' was wrong, I suppose that it would be more accurate for me to state that 'Y' is the correct state of affairs", or alternatively "Do you know, I was wrong on this one", astounds me. I find such a lack of grace and courage incredibly disappointing. To enter a debate, call others wrong, then flee the moment you are debunked, is about the most clear-cut case of immaturity and childishness that you could possibly have displayed.

So, for shame sir. If you are not (at your age) ready to admit defeat or to willingly revise your original contentions in the face of overwhelming countervailing logic, then you are not yet ready for debate (on the internet or anywhere else). Please refrain from the same until you have learnt that necessary skills, returning without them will only be a waste of everybody else's time.

[thegreekdog]

Well f*ck me running...

The so-called LastPatriot is, in the face of perhaps the most comprehensive trouncing ever performed on the internet, just going to pull the "Nuh Uh" move and run away.

The fact that a man who alleges to be raising a four-year old son does not have the good grace to admit "Actually, my original statement 'X' was wrong, I suppose that it would be more accurate for me to state that 'Y' is the correct state of affairs", or alternatively "Do you know, I was wrong on this one", astounds me. I find such a lack of grace and courage somewhat disgusting.

So, for shame sir. If you are not (at your age) ready to admit defeat or to willingly revise your original contentions, then you are not yet ready for debate. Please refrain from the same until you have learnt that necessary skills.

Maybe he's, I don't know, doing something else... like sleeping, or eating... or maybe praying. You're a very demanding dude.

[thelastpatriot]

There is nothing to proceed to. We have 2 different takes on it.

We really do...

The point is precisely that we have two different takes on 'it'. One of our takes (mine) can be demonstrated to be true via the application of logic and rational scrutiny, whereas the other (yours) can be easily demonstrated to be untenable and ridiculous.

The whole point is that we have two takes, I just spent two posts completely dismantling your take and showing that it was unworkable and inane. The place that we have to proceed to is the part where you either demonstrate where my logic has been in error, or concede that your proposition is unworkable.

Simply throwing up your hands and saying "uh, well I don't agree" doesn't magically make your opinion valid. You've been roundly demonstrated to be 100% wrong on this issue. You can't just 'buy out' and 'agree to disagree' here... to walk away at this point is to admit defeat and call your proposition false.

That's where we're at, and they're the two places that we could go to. We haven't reached some kind of moot point here. I've pointed out that you are wrong in every single way, you have failed to respond in any rational way. There is plenty of scope for us to proceed, this is not an impasse.

Now are you conceding, or do you have a rebuttal to make?


PS. Forgive me if that seems rude; it's just that it's mildly annoying to spend two posts logically dismantling a proposition that somebody seemed willing to argue about, only to have them tuck their tail between their legs and scurry off at the first sign of trouble, leaving nothing but a "well, er, I'm still right! Even though I can't explain why..." platitude as a sign-off.

You have not dismantled anything. All your doing is trying to use 21st century logic to dismantle that "thought" does not make it real, not true, but real.
Trying to entice me into continuing a debate with you that I won't agree to your side and you to mine is a waist of time. I'm not going to change your mind and you can not change mine.
I find it funny how you try and size me up at the end. I wonder if you would be so bold in person?

[SultanOfSurreal]

Yeah, you're way better than me.

i never said i'm better than you, only that i'm better at insulting. there are lots of other things you're better than me at. you have it all over me as far as dopey equivocations go, for example.

By the way, I think religious faith does essentially boil down to having the mental capacity (or imagination) of a four year old.

that's a strange thing for a religious person to freely admit bro

[john9blue]

Your argument is sort of a dumbed-down version of the ontological argument, which generally goes like this:

- We can conceive of God in our thoughts
- It is greater to be both in reality and in human thought, rather than only in human thought
- God is the greatest possible being
- Therefore, God exists both in reality and in human thought

and is not "easily falsifiable" or whatever BS sultan said earlier. Kindly indicate to me which premise is false.

[Dancing Mustard]

You have not dismantled anything. All your doing is trying to use 21st century logic to dismantle that "thought" does not make it real, not true, but real.

No, I really have dismantled something. Namely, your opinion.

I have:
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition does not fit with reality
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition clearly cannot be true
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition is self-contradicting
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition devalues the very God it seeks to defend

Seriously, deny it all you like (once again, without any rational defence of your proposition), but you have been comprehensively demonstrated to be in error here. You are wrong on every level. Yell 'nuh uh' all you want and bury your head in the sand as far as it will go... but the simple fact is that your original proposition has been completely broken down and dismantled.

Furthermore, how exactly are you going to conduct debates if not with "21st Century Logic"? What are we going to judge arguments based on, their volume? Their wordcount? Their incidence of vowel usage? By what other standard would you have our propositions judged? Perhaps you'd just like it all to revolve around 'belief' and have this devolve in to a shouting match in which we tested who could out-bellow who in trumpeting our respective beliefs the loudest? Is that how you'd like proceedings to continue?

Trying to entice me into continuing a debate with you that I won't agree to your side and you to mine is a waist of time.

*Sigh*

Wrong. How many times will people continue to insist on wheeling out this jaded old mule of an excuse when they feel themselves being logically crushed?

I realise that you're too stubborn to change your mind. But the purpose of proceeding is to convince observers and to provide them with interesting points of view. Simply barking opinions at each other, then 'agreeing to disagree' is pointless as it fails to showcase how well viewpoints stand up to logical scrutiny.

By continuing this you would be able to indulge in the opportunity to salvage your proposition from the ruins it currently stands in. By backing out now you leave your ideas debunked.

On the other hand, if you think that conceding defeat and running away is a better way to proceed... then be my guest.

I find it funny how you try and size me up at the end. I wonder if you would be so bold in person?

You bet your arse I would.

I'm quite happy to size you up based on this thread and entirely entitled to do so. Your intellect and character has been demonstrated very clearly, allowing me to create a cogent and defensible opinion of you.

But please, keep the internet hard-man "Oh yeah! Well I may be wrong, but I totally bet that I'm bigger than you in real life!!!" wank out of it. That's just BS and a smokescreen to divert from the intellectual defeat that you've suffered here. If I had wanted to engage you in a knob-measuring contest then I'd have just e-mailed you a shot of my wang a long time ago.


Now back on track: Can you defend your proposition and/or rebut my arguments. Or are you just going to essentially concede defeat while retreating under a flimsy shield of "Nuh uh!" and "Er, well I don't agree, and my lack of any argument whatsoever does not demonstrate that I am unable to defend myself... I just, er, um... look I'm right ok!!" posts?

[SultanOfSurreal]

Your argument is sort of a dumbed-down version of the ontological argument, which generally goes like this:

- We can conceive of God in our thoughts
- It is greater to be both in reality and in human thought, rather than only in human thought
- God is the greatest possible being
- Therefore, God exists both in reality and in human thought

and is not "easily falsifiable" or whatever BS sultan said earlier. Kindly indicate to me which premise is false.

oh lord, please don't tell me you actually believe in the ontological argument

[thelastpatriot]

You have not dismantled anything. All your doing is trying to use 21st century logic to dismantle that "thought" does not make it real, not true, but real.

No, I really have dismantled something. Namely, your opinion.

I have:
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition does not fit with reality
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition clearly cannot be true
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition is self-contradicting
[*]Demonstrated that your proposition devalues the very God it seeks to defend

Seriously, deny it all you like (once again, without any rational defence of your proposition), but you have been comprehensively demonstrated to be in error here. You are wrong on every level. Yell 'nuh uh' all you want and bury your head in the sand as far as it will go... but the simple fact is that your original proposition has been completely broken down and dismantled.

Furthermore, how exactly are you going to conduct debates if not with "21st Century Logic"? What are we going to judge arguments based on, their volume? Their wordcount? Their incidence of vowel usage? By what other standard would you have our propositions judged? Perhaps you'd just like it all to revolve around 'belief' and have this devolve in to a shouting match in which we tested who could out-bellow who in trumpeting our respective beliefs the loudest? Is that how you'd like proceedings to continue?

Trying to entice me into continuing a debate with you that I won't agree to your side and you to mine is a waist of time.

*Sigh*

Wrong. How many times will people continue to insist on wheeling out this jaded old mule of an excuse when they feel themselves being logically crushed?

I realise that you're too stubborn to change your mind. But the purpose of proceeding is to convince observers and to provide them with interesting points of view. Simply barking opinions at each other, then 'agreeing to disagree' is pointless as it fails to showcase how well viewpoints stand up to logical scrutiny.

By continuing this you would be able to indulge in the opportunity to salvage your proposition from the ruins it currently stands in. By backing out now you leave your ideas debunked.

On the other hand, if you think that conceding defeat and running away is a better way to proceed... then be my guest.

I find it funny how you try and size me up at the end. I wonder if you would be so bold in person?

You bet your arse I would.

I'm quite happy to size you up based on this thread and entirely entitled to do so. Your intellect and character has been demonstrated very clearly, allowing me to create a cogent and defensible opinion of you.

But please, keep the internet hard-man "Oh yeah! Well I may be wrong, but I totally bet that I'm bigger than you in real life!!!" wank out of it. That's just BS and a smokescreen to divert from the intellectual defeat that you've suffered here. If I had wanted to engage you in a knob-measuring contest then I'd have just e-mailed you a shot of my wang a long time ago.


Now back on track: Can you defend your proposition and/or rebut my arguments. Or are you just going to essentially concede defeat while retreating under a flimsy shield of "Nuh uh!" and "Er, well I don't agree, and my lack of any argument whatsoever does not demonstrate that I am unable to defend myself... I just, er, um... look I'm right ok!!" posts?

I'm laughing hysterically. You should get paid for this.