1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 14:43
    How many other prime numbers are even?...none! Therefore 2 is best.

    Think this statement is utter BS?...ditto with the theist claim that God, creator of the universe is the font of all morality.
  2. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    16 Apr '10 14:50
    No no, 7 is clearly the best prime number, because it's also lucky.
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 14:561 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    No no, 7 is clearly the best prime number, because it's also lucky.
    No!...7 is lucky only because 2 allows it to be lucky since:
    7=2+5 =2+2+3=2+2+2+1

    😵
  4. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Apr '10 15:10
    Originally posted by Agerg
    How many other prime numbers are even?...none! Therefore 2 is best.

    Think this statement is utter BS?...ditto with the theist claim that God, creator of the universe is the font of all morality.
    If you're trying to pick a fight relative to standards, you're already on the losing end. Ultimately, all standards--- not simply morality (which, by the way, is not among God's characteristics)--- will ultimately find their origination in Him.
  5. Pale Blue Dot
    Joined
    22 Jul '07
    Moves
    21637
    16 Apr '10 15:171 edit
    Plato and the Pythagoreans liked 6. [Granted it's not prime.]

    Then again, Plato thought that god fashioned the world from a pair of triangles; and Pythagoras never existed.
  6. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 15:521 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    If you're trying to pick a fight relative to standards, you're already on the losing end. Ultimately, all standards--- not simply morality (which, by the way, is not among God's characteristics)--- will ultimately find their origination in Him.
    I haven't the foggiest idea how you could possibly try and justify this without just reaching for scripture *





    * Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept your God inspired your choice of scripture (or whatever you believe), and it clearly implies that all standards originate in him, there is nothing to stop me from validly making the claim that perhaps your god is not being truthful on this matter. (I've had the "God can't lie" argument before btw).
  7. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    16 Apr '10 16:31
    Originally posted by Agerg
    No!...7 is lucky only because 2 allows it to be lucky since:
    7=2+5 =2+2+3=2+2+2+1

    😵
    That's just crazy talk. A two on it's own isn't lucky. You need three of 'em and then a 1 to make lucky. Whereas if I got a 7, I'm there already. At best, two is two sevenths of lucky. I know I'm right because I believe it.
  8. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 17:021 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    That's just crazy talk. A two on it's own isn't lucky. You need three of 'em and then a 1 to make lucky. Whereas if I got a 7, I'm there already. At best, two is two sevenths of lucky. I know I'm right because I believe it.
    Aha...but I never said 2 was lucky (2 doesn't need luck!), I said it was best, and as we all know: best <=/=> lucky.
    I have more than belief...I have faith! 😏
  9. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    16 Apr '10 17:05
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Aha...but I never said 2 was lucky, I said it was best, and as we all know: best <=/=> lucky.
    I have more than belief...I have faith! 😏
    Ah! But what you have faith in is different from what I believe, therefore you are clearly ignorant of what I know (through my belief) to be the truth - open your mind to the glory of 7, unbeliever! Once you accept that it is the best prime number, you will see that it is the best prime number.
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 17:351 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Ah! But what you have faith in is different from what I believe, therefore you are clearly ignorant of what I know (through my belief) to be the truth - open your mind to the glory of 7, unbeliever! Once you accept that it is the best prime number, you will see that it is the best prime number.
    You know not what you speak heretic!...I can forgive you however because though

    "Once you accept that it is the best prime number, you will see that it is the best prime number"

    looks completely winning (since it is indeed always true that A => A), you forgot to replace "it" by "2" in "...it is the best..." and so the sentence at its very heart is meaningless.
  11. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    16 Apr '10 17:37
    and so the sentence at its very heart is meaningless.[/b]
    Ah you poor little lost lamb, of course you find no meaning in this sentence, this is because you have not accepted 7 into your heart as the best prime number.
  12. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 17:501 edit
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Ah you poor little lost lamb, of course you find no meaning in this sentence, this is because you have not accepted 7 into your heart as the best prime number.
    But I can easily demonstrate your beliefs are false merely by providing an excerpt from some writings (self evidently inspired by 2) which clearly state that 2 is best.

    Would receipt of this evidence assuage your confusion on such matters, before your soul is damned for eternity?
  13. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    16 Apr '10 18:02
    Why would you give credence to writings you freely admit are inspired by 2 when clearly (I refer to my earlier posts) 7 is the best prime number? Now if you were to examine the tome I have here, which was written, and then edited by seperate people who were both inspired by 7, you would, I have no doubt, discover the error of your ways. You infidel.
  14. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    16 Apr '10 18:15
    Originally posted by avalanchethecat
    Why would you give credence to writings you freely admit are inspired by 2 when clearly (I refer to my earlier posts) 7 is the best prime number? Now if you were to examine the tome I have here, which was written, and then edited by seperate people who were both inspired by 7, you would, I have no doubt, discover the error of your ways. You infidel.
    Meh...your tome was written by 23 worshippers and for all that is sacred, their words should never be uttered. I can bear out the truth of these sacred words from the "Two-rue" with prophecy:

    Jim (2:8) "a heretic will fall upon the righteous in the spring of 2010 with nine. Yet nine shall undo the unrighteous"
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    16 Apr '10 18:24
Back to Top