16 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergIf 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.
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.
16 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI haven't the foggiest idea how you could possibly try and justify this without just reaching for scripture *
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.
* 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).
16 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergThat'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.
No!...7 is lucky only because 2 allows it to be lucky since:
7=2+5 =2+2+3=2+2+2+1
😵
16 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAha...but I never said 2 was lucky (2 doesn't need luck!), I said it was best, and as we all know: best <=/=> lucky.
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.
I have more than belief...I have faith! 😏
16 Apr 10
Originally posted by AgergAh! 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.
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! 😏
16 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou know not what you speak heretic!...I can forgive you however because though
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.
"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.
16 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatBut 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.
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.
Would receipt of this evidence assuage your confusion on such matters, before your soul is damned for eternity?
16 Apr 10
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.
16 Apr 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatMeh...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:
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.
Jim (2:8) "a heretic will fall upon the righteous in the spring of 2010 with nine. Yet nine shall undo the unrighteous"
