[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Piff = ignorant troll.

Not worth getting excited over Messianic, I assure you. If you can't tell by now, he hasn't got the intelligence to partake in a conversation past the level of "no u r" retorts.

Eh, I figure i'll give him another labored response for good measure. I try to be honest with myself and everyone else at all times, and give them the benefit of the doubt while I can.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atleast you're eco-friendly. You built your wall of text out of bullshit haha. You sound retarded.

And you haven't built a reasonable reply to a glaring fallacy in your central point - your Christopher Hutchens quote (tbh, I didn't know it off hand, I googled it since it sounded familiar).

It's okay if you genuinely didn't understand what was written - that can often happen when you're confronted with problems with what you believe and you're more happy insulting someone else than dealing with those problems...

Or, you could at least admit that you'd rather not spend the time replying and being honest with yourself - don't waste my time and yours insulting me if you really can't coherently defend your point with reason and evidence - what you claim to base things on.

But if you made a bold statement that someone else's belief - not even necessarily mine - is stupid when your own belief is vulnerable to the same criticism...You should expect a response in a public arena.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fact is you can't believe there's a pen in your hand unless you prove it.

The above statement has no evidential basis. How do you arrive at that belief except by assuming without adequate evidence? It sounds nice, but if statements have to be believed based on a specific standard of evidence, what is the basis of believing the above statement? Boil it down, and you'll find an assumption not based on evidence, but based on a pragmatic decision that appears right, but has no ultimate justification.

If you're trying to actually say "You shouldn't believe things you can't prove, or at least hold them in a different regard from things you can prove," accommodating for the difference in kinds of proofs and appropriate categorization, then you have a coherent statement.

I don't have to be able to prove anything to anyone else to believe something and have it be true - but my methodology was certainly wrong if I believed it cause a drunk frog told me so and I accepted it because of that.

But here's the point: wrong methodology doesn't necessarily make someone wrong about their overall point. You assume wrong methodology (a whole other argument) means wrong conclusion.

Originally Posted by Piff [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not a big deal bud, it's just this Jesus guy and his pops are innocent until proven guilty. Imaginary until proven reality. y'know?

But if it can't be proven that Jesus is imaginary, why are you believing it? I thought you couldn't do that. It's not like you have to choose one or the other at the end of a gun.

And again, i'm not trying to argue from the position of a Theist or argue you into God or something - that's a really stupid goal - i'm just trying to show you that when you make statements like the ones you've made, you're contradicting yourself.