Originally posted by FMF Try me with some of your ideas of proof that you think substantiate your superstitious beliefs and I will tell you if I find them credible or not.*
* You, of course, know full well that you have asked me this question before at least once, and I answered it on those occasions. However, as is your wont, you ignored it at the time, and now you here you are again, as usual, just repeating it as if the previous 'conversation' never happened.
So you think something is only credible in reality if you find it credible? What if someone else finds it credible? How do you know that they are wrong and you are right?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So you think something is only credible in reality if you find it credible? What if someone else finds it credible? How do you know that they are wrong and you are right?
Where's the smiley? People will think you're being serious.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Nice dodge, it was a serious question, now are you going to ask for another smiley or are you going to answer it?
They didn't sound like serious questions when you asked me them previously [on what feels like a dozen occasions] either. I fell for it and tried to answer them the first few times, but then realized that it's just a little cluster of conversation-suffocating bits of obtuse nonsense.
Originally posted by FMF They didn't sound like serious questions when you asked me them previously [on what feels like a dozen occasions] either. I fell for it and tried to answer them the first few times, but then realized that it's just a little cluster of conversation-suffocating bits of obtuse nonsense.
The point is you don't know that you are right but you won't admit it.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk The point is you don't know that you are right but you won't admit it.
I am unconvinced by those opinions of yours that you have been putting forward, for the reasons I have given, so I think we can just agree to disagree.
Originally posted by FMF I am unconvinced by those opinions of yours that you have been putting forward, for the reasons I have given, so I think we can just agree to disagree.
If you were to find something convincing, would you be able to give me reasons as to why you do find it convincing?
Also, saying that you don't find something to be convincing because you don't find it to be convincing is tautology.
Originally posted by FMF You'll be the first to know if I ever find anything you base on your superstitions convincing. I'll just come right out and tell you. It's a deal.
But can you tell my why you find one idea convincing and not another? For something to be convincing it has to make sense or be logical. If it doesn't make sense it means it is not logical and therefore not convincing. Saying that you don't find something convincing because you don't find it convincing is a cop out. Rather tell me why you think it is not logical or why it doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk But can you tell my why you find one idea convincing and not another? For something to be convincing it has to make sense or be logical. If it doesn't make sense it means it is not logical and therefore not convincing. Saying that you don't mind something convincing because you don't find it convincing is a cop out. Rather tell me why you think it is not logical.
You've said all this before. Several times. I find none of the superstitious things that so appeal to your imagination to be convincing. I have explained why, repeatedly, on earlier threads. You chose to ignore what I said for the most part and simply repeated the same things over and over and over again, just as you are doing now.
Originally posted by FMF You've said all this before. Several times. I find none of the superstitious things that so appeal to your imagination to be convincing. I have explained why, repeatedly, on earlier threads. You chose to ignore what I said for the most part and simply repeated the same things over and over and over again, just as you are doing now.
You told me you don't find them convincing because you don't find the things that Christians claim about the Bible and the afterlife etc. to be convincing. So essentially you were saying you don't find them convincing because you don't find them convincing. That is not a legitimate reason. I would like to know what your reasoning is and how you reached your conclusions.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You told me you don't find them convincing because you don't find the things that Christians claim about the Bible and the afterlife etc. to be convincing. So essentially you were saying you don't find them convincing because you don't find them convincing. That is not a legitimate reason. I would like to know what your reasoning is and how you reached your conclusions.
You've said all this stuff before. Repeatedly. If you want to talk about something else, fine. But if you just want to repeat the same things as we went through on the Barriers to Belief and Hitler threads, and other threads too, over and over and over again, then I'm not interested.
Originally posted by FMF You've said all this stuff before. Repeatedly. If you want to talk about something else, fine. But if you just want to repeat the same things as we went through on the Barriers to Belief and Hitler threads, and other threads too, over and over and over again, then I'm not interested.
So do you agree that you cannot tell me exactly what the reasons are that you find my beliefs to be unconvincing?
Originally posted by FMF You appear to be ignoring what I am saying to you. Yet again.
"If we are essentially forced to believe things and cannot choose to believe anything, then it is irrelevant whether that which we believe in is true or false. We believe because were forced to believe, not because we weigh the evidence, apply logic, and choose to believe something."
Was Peter crucified upside-down?
08 Feb '17 05:36
Back to Top