Faith

[falcon9]

No one here has to justify their opinion to you just because you say so.

That's correct; no one "has to" substantiate an empty opinion however, such "opinions" when made as stated assertions, ("atheism is a belief system"), may be disputed and challenged in a D+D forum.  It's also correct that the claimaint, (the one who stated their "opinion" as if it had substantiation), doesn't have to "justify" their making speciously false remarks.  And yes, 'Mack, "opinions" can be specious; yours certainly turned out to be.

[falcon9]

If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search.  I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you.  They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.

Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive.  That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.

[SurveyMack10]

It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions

As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones.  I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.

You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.

The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).

"the content wasn't altered" = false.

[SurveyMack10]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 09:36:57 pm
That is a "bias" statement you made about me - you are prejudiced with your remark because I am a Christian, and that is unfair to me and to those in this forum whom I've had the pleasure (and/or displeasure) to debate with.

Quote from: falcon9:
You are mistaken regarding 'prejudice' against xtians as regards my posts.  There no no examples of my specifically and unambiguously exhibiting stated bias against anyone due to their religious or nonreligious stance.  My comment implied that it wasn't all that remarkable for one xtian to agree/side with another.  That's why there are huge congregations of 'em, despite internal disparaties of understanding.

Your comment was directly aimed at me, at that moment.


Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 09:36:57 pm
There are a couple of nonbelievers in this thread who I've debated with, and I've agreed with them on certain remarks or issues when the other side said something I felt was incorrect. ]/quote] [/color]


Quote from: falcon9:
I'm unaware of those instances to which you refer.  Have you got any examples or message IDs available so that I could have a look at them?

If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search.  I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you.  They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.
 

I can think of countless instances where you have had many intelligent conversations with nonbelievers on this thread, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them. This will be referred to as biased since we are both Christians, but I wanted to say that I was going to suggest you not wasting your time digging up the messages because they still likely won't be accepted as proof.

[jcribb16]

If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search.  I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you.  They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.

Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive.  That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.

That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree."  To you it remains inconclusive.  It's not part of the actual topic you two were debating about. As I said you can disbelieve if you so choose - it doesn't matter to me.  I know what I said is conclusive - you don't know me from a hill of beans, so I don't expect you to know me enough to believe me or not.  And vice versa, too.  You are starting to make this part of the debate/discuss appear comical - humor is good for the soul.  I think you just enjoy debating/discussing/challenging/circling/making rulings on whether things are "inconclusive," "no evidence," "empty opinions," - "no assessment," etc. 

[falcon9]

It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions

As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones.  I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.

You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.

The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).

"the content wasn't altered" = false.

The content consisted of your words, none were added, (although a few were removed and resequenced).  That did alter the meaning from your intended excuse to the actual excuse, nothing more.

[falcon9]

If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search.  I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you.  They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.

Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive.  That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.

That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree."  To you it remains inconclusive. 

That's correct; it is inconclusive to me, (or anyone else not aware of previous examples to support your contention).  That means that no conclusion can be drawn from unsubmitted evidence, (although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).

You are starting to make this part of the debate/discuss appear comical - humor is good for the soul.  I think you just enjoy debating/discussing/challenging/circling/making rulings on whether things are "inconclusive," "no evidence," "empty opinions," - "no assessment," etc.[/color] 

Zounds, you've unmasked me! 

[SurveyMack10]

It is seriously unbelievable that you refuse to acknowledge that we have different opinions

As alluded to; there are vast differences between unsubstantiated, (empty), "opinions" and substantiated, (supported with evidence or lines of reasoning), ones.  I can't be sure why this distinction continues to elude your understanding.

You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.

The word order you used above was slightly rearranged for accuracy, (the content wasn't altered however, the underlying meaning becomes clearer with that word sequence).

"the content wasn't altered" = false.

The content consisted of your words, none were added, (although a few were removed and resequenced).  That did alter the meaning from your intended excuse to the actual excuse, nothing more.

Let's eat grandpa.
Let's eat, grandpa.
A simple comma can change the content enough to threaten grandpa's life. If a comma can change the content of a post, rearranging and removing words can do the same.

If you said "I want to go to the park" and I removed some words and changed it to "I want to park"...the meaning is totally different.

So your defense that you used words I posted does not make sense. If the order of words didn't matter, the whole english language as we learned it in school wouldn't even be relevant?

[joseadam]

I believe God is always necessary!! Take a look at this world since God has been practically taken out of everything.  Take a look at all the school shootings since prayer, the ten commandments, and God has been taken out of our schools....when God was allowed in the schools, you didn't hear of so much violence among our children in schools like you do now.  I think everyone needs to think about this. Remember God is good all the time!!  

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 10:02:18 pm
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search.  I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you.  They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.

Quote from falcon9:
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive.  That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.

Quote from jcribb:
That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree."  To you it remains inconclusive.

Quote from falcon9:
That's correct; it is inconclusive to me, (or anyone else not aware of previous examples to support your contention).  That means that no conclusion can be drawn from unsubmitted evidence, (although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).

You did fine until the last part of your statement: "(although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).

It may bear a striking resemblance, but you are really doing the enjoyment part I listed and trying to challenge or dare me to submit the evidence. It's in the forum, but I don't wish to accept the challenge or dare at this moment - it's way past my bedtime, thanks to insomnia, but I am going to go and make myself get some rest. Oh, and that reminds me!!  You always tell someone to go back and find something they said you commented on; that you weren't going to go back yourself and look.  It's kind of like that now, lol!!

Yep!  At least you agreed that I "unmasked you," lol!

[SurveyMack10]

Quote from: jcribb16 on Today at 10:02:18 pm
If you are so inclined to read them, then you can search.  I'm not going back to look just to prove my answer to you. You can choose to believe or disbelieve - we have lives outside of this forum and I would be wasting precious time with my family just to go back through a year's worth of debates to prove something to you.  They know who they are about whom I'm speakiing of but I'm not bringing their names into this only because it's not fair to involve them in something they may be choosing to stay out of.

Quote from falcon9:
Then, as I mentioned previously, your assertion remains inconclusive.  That means no assessment as to its accuracy has been made.

Quote from jcribb:
That sounds eerily familiar to your "not agreeing to disagree."  To you it remains inconclusive.

Quote from falcon9:
That's correct; it is inconclusive to me, (or anyone else not aware of previous examples to support your contention).  That means that no conclusion can be drawn from unsubmitted evidence, (although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).

You did fine until the last part of your statement: "(although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).

It may bear a striking resemblance, but you are really doing the enjoyment part I listed and trying to challenge or dare me to submit the evidence. It's in the forum, but I don't wish to accept the challenge or dare at this moment - it's way past my bedtime, thanks to insomnia, but I am going to go and make myself get some rest. Oh, and that reminds me!!  You always tell someone to go back and find something they said you commented on; that you weren't going to go back yourself and look.  It's kind of like that now, lol!!

Yep!  At least you agreed that I "unmasked you," lol!

 

[falcon9]

" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."

You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.

Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made.  The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).


 

[SurveyMack10]

" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."

You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.

Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made.  The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).


 

Irrelevant- my point was that your assertion that removing and resequencing words doesn't change content is wrong, and I showed examples of that so don't even try to deny any evidence.

[falcon9]

You did fine until the last part of your statement: "(although unsubmitted evidence bears a striking resemblance to no evidence ...).

It was phrased in that way because unsubmitted evidence is indistinguishable from a lack of evidence.  The only difference between them being the possibility remains to produce previously unsubmitted evidence while a lack of evidence exists as only a void.

It may bear a striking resemblance, but you are really doing the enjoyment part I listed and trying to challenge or dare me to submit the evidence.

Yep.  If I thought it would help to dare you, I might've.

It's in the forum, but I don't wish to accept the challenge or dare at this moment - it's way past my bedtime, thanks to insomnia, but I am going to go and make myself get some rest.

What if I estimated, (based upon most of your posted responses to me so far), that your contention is more likely valid than not?  This is necessarily a provisional conclusion and could still go either way.  For now, you get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Oh, and that reminds me!!  You always tell someone to go back and find something they said you commented on; that you weren't going to go back yourself and look.  It's kind of like that now, lol!!

Yes, it is since when someone insists that they've said so-and-so before but, declines to produce the relavent quote as evidence, I'm somewhat dubious of their assertion.  Doubtless I'm jaded from over a decade of combating the nonsense which trolls produce so profusely on usenet newsgroups.  It used to be a good way to discern human behavioural patterns, separate fact from fiction and generally clear away the underbrush of any smoke 'n mirrors.  Yeah, it was fun too.

Yep!  At least you agreed that I "unmasked you," lol! [/color]

Or, at least you unmasked the mask I intended you to.

[falcon9]

" ... we have different opinions and simply cannot accept it. You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still going to agree to disagree ..."

You can continue to repeat yourself, but I am still ... simply cannot accept it.

Those are the original and resequenced quotes, side-by-side. As can be seen by the grammatical rift in the resequenced version, no attempt to alter the actual words used was made.  The meaning change was being emphasized with the resequencing, (not concealed).


 

Irrelevant-

It is contextually-relevent.  The two versions were posted side-by-side for comparison purposes.  If wished, go ahead and interpret each one of your own statements insofar as you perceive their meaning to be.  Then, I'll do the same.  Or, not - your choice.