Proof of God

enlightenment said:
Well at least you finally concede that the title of your thread was stupid, as in misleading.

Well done for that.
Click to expand...

:confused: Where EXACTLY did I concede that?
What I pointed out was the irony in you saying
that my title is stupid... you, the person who
started a thread titled "Israel a Super Power?" lol.

I know some people aren't really into politics, and
some might even consider that query of yours logical
and valid... but the ones who actually know anything
about politics were, I am sure, much amused. I believe
at least one person came right out and said how stupid
the entire question was...

Anyways... back to the point... where is your rebuttal?

I shall take it your silence re Tao is an admission of culpability?
Click to expand...

I'd rather let you think that, then tell you what actually happened.
 
c0de said:
:confused: Where EXACTLY did I concede that?
What I pointed out was the irony in you saying
that my title is stupid... you, the person who
started a thread titled "Israel a Super Power?" lol.

Blah, blah, blah, more gymnastic semantics. :p

I know some people aren't really into politics, and
some might even consider that query of yours logical
and valid...

How gracious of you. Thanks.

but the ones who actually know anything
about politics were, I am sure, much amused. I believe
at least one person came right out and said how stupid
the entire question was...

A whole one person, huh? Well that is pretty conclusive then, huh? Since you mentioned it, if you recall the poll results, they were fairly evenly split, huh? What does that suggest to you? It suggest to me that those that voted were unsure of a definitive answer. Unless you are arrogantly suggesting that the voters were too stupid to understand?



Anyways... back to the point... where is your rebuttal?

About what? Not that bleedin' first post again? What about it exactly? What precisely is it you wish me to refute?



I'd rather let you think that, then tell you what actually happened.
Click to expand...

I asked it.

You can ask me the same.

And I would say, no, I had nothing to do with his ban, in any way, shape or form. Now. Can you say the same? That seems a reasonable question to me, and I will accept your answer as the honest one.
 
btw, your really abusing the "bold" button there bud.

enlightenment said:
About what? Not that bleedin' first post again? What about it exactly? What precisely is it you wish me to refute?
Click to expand...


Wait... are you actually asking me, to tell you, what to refute?
*shakes head in disbelief*.... Do you know how a debate works?
You said that the first post does not prove that God exists right?
Well, what part of the arguments contained in the first post
do you feel fail to achieve that purpose? BE SPECIFIC


if you recall the poll results, they were fairly evenly split, huh?
Click to expand...
Yea, did you notice this is a forum about interfaith dialogue
and not political dialogue? So I would assume that most people
arent really into politics. Did you also notice that I said that only
those who are interested in politics would have found your
inquiry amusing. Considering how the very definition of the
term "super power" would have put to rest the idea that Israel
is, or can ever be a super power. But since you are not really
up to speed on such matter's i'll excuse you.


And I would say, no, I had nothing to do with his ban, in any way, shape or form. Now. Can you say the same? That seems a reasonable question to me, and I will accept your answer as the honest one.
Click to expand...
Lets just say... it wasn't my idea. Its not like he was doing any damage to me or theism.
In fact, having him around to represent your side actually served my side's interests.
 
Know what?

I feel I have given this thread and you chance enough.

You asked me to post on here, not the other way around.

You have asked me to read the OP, and give you my thoughts on it.

I have tried to, several times, you are apparently not satisfied with my answers, well, I guess you are going to have to live with that, as much as I have to live with the fact that we have now gone pages and pages, and no one has yet to see or read anything that would merit this thread title.

You could get a job in the red tops though, writing sensational headlines!

Have a nice night.


*waves*
 
enlightenment said:
Know what?

I feel I have given this thread and you chance enough.

You asked me to post on here, not the other way around.

You have asked me to read the OP, and give you my thoughts on it.

I have tried to, several times, you are apparently not satisfied with my answers, well, I guess you are going to have to live with that, as much as I have to live with the fact that we have now gone pages and pages, and no one has yet to see or read anything that would merit this thread title.

You could get a job in the red tops though, writing sensational headlines!

Have a nice night.


*waves*
Click to expand...


In other words, you have no rebuttal.

Well then, thank you for your (attempted) participation...

have a nice night.
 
c0de said:
Lets just say... it wasn't my idea. Its not like he was doing any damage to me or theism.
In fact, having him around to represent your side actually served my side's interests.
Click to expand...

And what would those be?

To stifle debate?

To have removed those who do not see the need to automatically respect religion?

To create a clique of nodding dogs?

Tell me.

What precisely are the 'interests' of your side?

What a sinister use of the word.

But then I suppose you are well taught.

After all, religion not only preaches violent, if religion were football clubs, they would have been closed down for not be able to keep their followers in order.

And that, my little theist friend, is a fact.
 
c0de said:
In other words, you have no rebuttal.

Well then, thank you for your (attempted) participation...

have a nice night.
Click to expand...

What you wrote was a pile of non related, nonsensical gibberish, words which in no way proved anything.

*Sigh - how many times*

Shall I just pick words at random, title a thread, PROOF OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER, then ask you to do a rebuttal of any equally absurd OP.

:rolleyes:
 
enlightenment said:
And what would those be?

To stifle debate?

To have removed those who do not see the need to automatically respect religion?

To create a clique of nodding dogs?

Tell me.

What precisely are the 'interests' of your side?

What a sinister use of the word.

But then I suppose you are well taught.

After all, religion not only preaches violent, if religion were football clubs, they would have been closed down for not be able to keep their followers in order.

And that, my little theist friend, is a fact.
Click to expand...


:confused:

Your not paying attention at all are you now?
I said: his banning, was not my idea.

To tell you the truth, he was my favorite sparring partner.
Unlike you three, he actually tried to refute the opponents arguments.
 
enlightenment said:
What you wrote was a pile of non related, nonsensical gibberish, words which in no way proved anything.

*Sigh - how many times*

Shall I just pick words at random, title a thread, PROOF OF THE LOCH NESS MONSTER, then ask you to do a rebuttal of any equally absurd OP.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...



rrrrrite.

Anything which you can't refute (or understand) automatically becomes gibberish then eh?

Nice...
 
enlightenment said:
No.

Just your assertion that the OP was proof of god.

That is what is gibberish.

:p
Click to expand...


You do realize how effeminate that pink emoticon is rite?

btw, are you now saying that the first post is not gibberish,
only the title of the thread? If so, then I am sure you would
be willing to try and refute the first post. Because if you
succeed, then you could actually prove that the title is
indeed gibberish.
 
c0de said:
:confused:

Your not paying attention at all are you now?
I said: his banning, was not my idea.

To tell you the truth, he was my favorite sparring partner.
Unlike you three, he actually tried to refute the opponents arguments.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was your idea, did I? You said having something about serving some 'interests', and I asked you what those were.

If you want to keep trying to twist what I am saying, go ahead, but others reading this will see that also.

Hardly the actions of a man of god, as I assume you to be, right?

A believer?
 
c0de said:
You do realize how effeminate that pink emoticon is rite?.
Click to expand...

Really?

S'funny, I don't tend to dwell on the colour of an emoticon, and relate it to gender or sexuality.

You clearly do.

Brilliance.

:rolleyes:
 
enlightenment said:
I didn't say it was your idea, did I? You said having something about serving some 'interests', and I asked you what those were.

If you want to keep trying to twist what I am saying, go ahead, but others reading this will see that also.

Hardly the actions of a man of god, as I assume you to be, right?

A believer?
Click to expand...

my interests are to support theism (duh!)



enlightenment said:
Really?

S'funny, I don't tend to dwell on the colour of an emoticon, and relate it to gender or sexuality.

You clearly do.

Brilliance.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


dude you could be using make-up and eyeliner for all I care,
was just giving you some friendly advise is all
 
c0de said:
my interests are to support theism (duh!)

Better to ask than to assume, don't you find? And these interests. Is it to support ALL of theism, or just your chosen version?





dude you could be using make-up and eyeliner for all I care,
was just giving you some friendly advise is all
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, thanks, it has probably changed the lives of many.

Here, try a green one, what does that tell you?

:D
 
I'll pass.

I think the mulled wine and Koom bye a my Lord would be too exciting for my heart, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top