McBell
Unbound
Project much?And it becomes painfully obvious to me that you have no idea what your talking about, either sand or can's.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Project much?And it becomes painfully obvious to me that you have no idea what your talking about, either sand or can's.
Yes, I know you prefer your logic over the real thing.
Sad thing to.
Especially with you claiming to better than that.
I find it extremely amusing how you are no better than the theists you claim to be better than.
And the real kicker is that you are to arrogant and to sure of yourself to see anything beyond what you want to see.
So you go ahead and flat out lie about what I stated.
You are only hurting your own credibility.
At what point did I make the claim that you stated it?Talk about hurting one's credibility, at what point did I specifically state that "I was BETTER than theists" It's important that you step up and show us all were I said such a thing. Lying is not one of the traits I had you pegged for.
At what point did I make the claim that you stated it?
Why must it be pointed out where you "specifically" stated it?
Oh, I see.
Because you did not "specifically" state it.
You heavily implied it.
In fact, you heavily imply it every time you bring up peter pan.
The really funny thing is that every time you bring up peter pan and your magic dust, (why are you so obsessed with peter pan? people are starting to talk....) you only remind everyone who actually does understand how logic works, just how much you do not understand about logic.
however, I have figured out what discussing logic with you is like....playing chess with pigeons.
so you are claiming that you did not imply it?Not only are you dishonest, you don't have the stones to apologize for lying.
Fair enough.That I 'heavily implied it" is your opinion, not at all a fact.
PLease present where I insisted that peter pan could possibly exist?The only reason I keep bringing up Pan man, is your insistence that such a being could possibly exist, i just find that very weird.
:slap:And BTW, you really never want to play chess with me, trust me on that!!
so you are claiming that you did not imply it?
Fair enough.
PLease present where I insisted that peter pan could possibly exist?
I never once said any such thing.
and when you cannot produce I will flat out call you a bold faced liar.
:slap:
Geez dude, pay attention.
I already explain why I would not bother playing chess with you.
Again, fair enough.No, I never implied that I was "better" than a theists, thats your interpretation.
so where exactly did I INSIST that peter pan could exist?Your post # 135-----"Again you have not proved that Peter Pan does not exist." With that statement you are "Implying" that Peter Pan could possibly exist.
Your post # 204-----"Even your logic does not work with Peter Pan." Once again implying that Pan man exists. You might have said, Yes I know Peter Pan does not exist, but your logic does not hold up. Nowhere have you ever said that you were aware that Peter pan did not exist, implying that you though the possibility existed.
only if you take the quote out of context.Your post # 135-----"Again you have not proved that Peter Pan does not exist." With that statement you are "Implying" that Peter Pan could possibly exist.
only if you take the quote out of context.Your post # 204-----"Even your logic does not work with Peter Pan." Once again implying that Pan man exists.
only if you take the quote out of context.
Since the context of the quote is about logic...
only if you take the quote out of context.
Since the context of the quote is about logic...
irrelevant to the discussion of you faulty logic.So, lets agree or disagree, do you agree or disagree that the possibility exists that peter pan is real, that somehow, somewhere he does exist?
irrelevant to the discussion of you faulty logic.
However, for the record, I do not believe that peter pan exists.
Interestingly enough, my agreeing that peter pan does not exist in no way changes the fact that your logic is faulty.
No it isn't and no I am not.Oh, but it is, now you are obliged to tell me exactly why you do not believe in Peter Pan.
No it isn't and no I am not.
However...
The author of Peter Pan never once made any sort of claim that it was real.
It was written as fiction, published as fiction, advertised as fiction, etc.
I never claimed to have "PROVEN" that peter pan does not exist.so it appears your conclusion on the non-existence of Peter pan is faulty.
Did you even read my post? It's number 203. I explained why I can't do anything with your list, since it is just a list, and you haven't argued for those. Also in post 203, which you obviously did not read, I mentioned the two arguments you have made that have indeed displayed abysmal logic.Post #167 is the partial list that addresses a non-existing god. At some point i believe you stated that some or all of these displayed abysmal logic, I have asked you which ones.
What kind of sick deity would create people in such a way that they are allergic to the planet wherein there were born? I mean, really! Case in point, I am allergic to grass, pollen, mold, trees and nature in general as well as having wonderful food allergies to such harmful things as melons, bananas, nuts (but not peanuts), fish (but not shellfish), tomatoes and pretty much everything except chocolate and Dr. Pepper.
And there are people with far worse allergies - some of them potentially fatal.
It is my contention that no deity in his/her right mind would torture people thus.
I'd love to say more but I am going to go pray to Saint Benadryl...
You are defective.....please wait...the knock on the door is coming shortly. Do not panic. You will be assimilated.
The sun might go out tomorrow, could we prove it wont?
Cheers