Different? How?

Originally posted by Agerg
The claimant, who formatted those two statements did so on the latter half of the 4th page of the op`s atheist debating tactics thread. Indeed to save himself the wasted effort of trying to justify a position impenetrable to the other side, he asked if the other side could discern the difference between the two statements given in this thread. The formatting is well justified by the intent.

The formatting was in error, if the intention was to present separate ideas.
Barring that, you could (and should) have made it very clear that these were two statements from two claimants.
Only an idiot would not see the redundancy of one person stating the first claim and then following up with the second claim.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
However it was understood by everybody when it was presented by someone else is conjecture.

But true nonetheless.

It was presented in such a manner as to allow confusion by virtue of its inclusion of sequential ordering.
Only if you are desperately trying to be confused against all rationality.

Had the original poster presented them without that ordering, I am fairly certain that it could not be misconstrued.
And I am fairly sure that they could be misconstrued if you tried hard enough. I have seen you achieve the most remarkable misconstruing in the past, I doubt your abilities would have suddenly failed you just because of a lack of numbering.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The formatting was in error, if the intention was to present separate ideas.
Barring that, you could (and should) have made it very clear that these were two statements from two claimants.
Only an idiot would [b]not see the redundancy of one person stating the first claim and then following up with the second claim.[/b]

When I argue with you Freaky I do you the courtesy of not patronising your demonstrable intellect by spelling everything out for you. I extended the same courtesy to the op

Originally posted by Agerg
Actually had the ordering been reversed josephw would merely have claimed the first was redundant by following up with the second!

I doubt that highly, given what he's said up to this point.
As I have explained, taking the claims from the same person makes B redundant when it follows A.
If the order were reversed, A following B would merely be taking the case further--- not only the God you believe in, but all gods--- and therefore not redundant.
I'm quite certain Joseph follows once the poorly-worded formatting is cleared up, but I'll let him speak for himself on that point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But true nonetheless.

[b]It was presented in such a manner as to allow confusion by virtue of its inclusion of sequential ordering.
Only if you are desperately trying to be confused against all rationality.

Had the original poster presented them without that ordering, I am fairly certain that it could not be misconstrued.
And I am fairl ...[text shortened]... past, I doubt your abilities would have suddenly failed you just because of a lack of numbering.[/b]

Only if you are desperately trying to be confused against all rationality.
Well, let's not forget that rationality and logic both follow rules.
Rules are rules, including those which dictate how expressions are, um, expressed.

I have seen you achieve the most remarkable misconstruing in the past, I doubt your abilities would have suddenly failed you just because of a lack of numbering.
That was a compliment... right?

Originally posted by Agerg
When I argue with you Freaky I do you the courtesy of not patronising your demonstrable intellect by spelling everything out for you. I extended the same courtesy to the op

I merely was trying to clear up the confusion.
If he was right, Joseph was right only in the light of what I spelled out.
I honestly don't think he'd be arguing the point under any other circumstances.
I might be wrong, but I doubt it!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The formatting was in error,

No, it was not.

Barring that, you could (and should) have made it very clear that these were two statements from two claimants.
They do not necessarily have to be from two claimants.

Only an idiot would not see the redundancy of one person stating the first claim and then following up with the second claim.
And only a misreading of the original post would make anyone think to even consider that. It is perfectly reasonable for joseph to misread the original post, but quite surprising that he still doesn't get it despite it being explained a number of times.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Rules are rules, including those which dictate how expressions are, um, expressed.

Yes, and the rules were followed.

That was a compliment... right?
Yes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it was not.

[b]Barring that, you could (and should) have made it very clear that these were two statements from two claimants.
They do not necessarily have to be from two claimants.

Only an idiot would not see the redundancy of one person stating the first claim and then following up with the second claim.
And only a misreading of ...[text shortened]... but quite surprising that he still doesn't get it despite it being explained a number of times.[/b]

They do not necessarily have to be from two claimants.
Then you've stumped me.
How could they be from one person and not be redundant--- in that same order as given?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Then you've stumped me.
How could they be from one person and not be redundant--- in that same order as given?

They could be two possible statements from the same claimant. They are only redundant if it is assumed they are made simultaneously. The identity of the person making any given statement is irrelevant.
Consider these statements:
a) I believe all cats are tortoiseshell.
b) I believe my cats are tortoiseshell.
If I made statement a), would I be correct?
If I made statement b), is it possible I am correct.
See, same claimant. Also they are labelled, so I hope that doesn't throw you off.

I am actually not convinced that joseph thinks the two statements in the OP are to be taken simultaneously. I think the problem is he has blinkers. Both statements include a claim that the God he believe in doesn't exist, and that is all he cares about, so that is all he sees. He therefore thinks both statements are identical because he only sees things that matter to him. If one of the statements included a reference to blue cows, he would still think the two were identical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
They could be two possible statements from the same claimant. They are only redundant if it is assumed they are made simultaneously. The identity of the person making any given statement is irrelevant.
Consider these statements:
a) I believe all cats are tortoiseshell.
b) I believe my cats are tortoiseshell.
If I made statement a), would I be correc ...[text shortened]... f the statements included a reference to blue cows, he would still think the two were identical.

They are only redundant if it is assumed they are made simultaneously.
Simultaneously?
You mean, like, laying down a track and then dubbing another one over it, then playing them both back at the same time?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, the two claims are clearly different. In the first, the claimant is asserting that all god-conceptions fail to be instantiated, whereas in the second the claimant is only asserting that a particular god-conception fails to be instantiated. Yes, of course these are different claims. The first claim basically implies the second, but obviously the second does not imply the first. So they must have different content; they are different claims.

I accept this explanation. I have to. It's yours. How can I argue with it. It means what you want it to mean. It's yours. You own it! I'm content with it if you are.

But I still hold to the fact that both statement mean the same thing because they both refer to the same god or gods whether they be mine or another's.

If I say, 'I hate all beer' (God forbid), then I say, 'I hate your beer', I am being redundant.

Originally posted by josephw
I accept this explanation. I have to. It's yours. How can I argue with it. It means what you want it to mean. It's yours. You own it! I'm content with it if you are.

But I still hold to the fact that both statement mean the same thing because they both refer to the same god or gods whether they be mine or another's.

If I say, 'I hate all beer' (God forbid), then I say, 'I hate your beer', I am being redundant.

The first point you make in the Atheists Debate Tactics is that we tend to

1. Attack the individual.
a. Ridicule
b. Belittle
c. Insult their intelligence

Well in this thread and the post which inspired it, such an attack is warranted! You are clearly demonstrating the lack of intelligence on your part I and others have observed in many other interactions we have had with you!


Recall that what I said was:

Before I waste my time answering a question in such way that you will not appreciate the answer, perhaps you would like to demonstrate you are fit for such a conversation by explaining what (if any) differences there are in the following two statements:

1) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
2) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"

and observe the fact that this is clearly a challenge to you NOT to associate them with any particular person who might says them, but instead to concentrate on their meaning in isolation - acknowledging any parts where one is not saying the same thing as the other

Indeed consider the people who might not have even seen those two statements in their original context - they are still, unlike yourself, considering them, rightly, in isolation from each other.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I merely was trying to clear up the confusion.
If he was right, Joseph was right only in the light of what I spelled out.
I honestly don't think he'd be arguing the point under any other circumstances.
I might be wrong, but I doubt it!

I would say you are wrong. I don't recall any discussion between this guy and myself where there was ever a point I could suppose "he actually understands what I said" Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by josephw
But I still hold to the fact that both statement mean the same thing .......

If I say, 'I hate all beer' (God forbid), then I say, 'I hate your beer', I am being redundant.

Saying those two statements one after the other does make the second statement redundant. However, it is glaringly obvious to anyone except you, that the two statements do not mean the same thing - even when said redundantly one after the other.