You are really something, you are unique in all the debates I have been in, seen, or have transcips from. You seem to overlook good points and arguments that other more capable debaters from your point of view have made. I appreciate a good point even if I disagree. You seem to instead seek out on purpose things for which you have no way to know and assert them as fact. On top of that many of them are judgements about me which I do happen to know about and they are utterly rediculous. All my claims are consistent with the leading theological philosophers and some of them came directly from them. I am fairly familiar with the Abrahamic faiths and some eastern philosophy, and religion. I have in front of me on my desk a book written by perhaps the most universally respected philosopher alive in which he critiques the major religions. I have even been to several countries overseas and talked religion with people there.
You cling tenaciously to this perfection fallacy, or in other words, you upbraid your opponents using the false saw that because we cannot know for certain everything in the universe, we cannot know anything. And it's really, really sad to watch. When you get to some good points, please highlight them, because your posts are simply emotional denials based on nothing else.
LOL, you know only the religions based on, or the predecessor of, your own. That's it. What 'eastern philosophies', specifically? What is 'religion', that you use as if it's somehow a specific subject, rather than an empty generalization? You might as well state 'I've read up on paganism' as if that is any indication of anything but your ignorance, precisely as I noted. I think my point is clearly made by you. You've done no comparisons, but claim a wide range of awareness.. which you are unable to demonstrate.
Don't even begin to tell someone you have never even seen about his personal experience without documented justification. That is just pathetic and desperate.
Again, a ridiculous [please note the correct spelling of that word] false requirement. You are putting your own experiences out there for us to read. From them, I am perfectly capable opf judging.. especially since they are faaaaar from unique. And human psychological patterns are what they are. And they are knowable. I know them.
Is there nothing too rediculous that you won't cling to it too avoid the truth.
All this is a bad theory based on in an unproven field.
That is
hysterical
This mess besides just being silly is actually incapable of being true and there is no way you could no if they were all true.
Yes yes, throw another tantrum.
It is true.
There is no possible way whatsoever that all faiths have equal value even if they were true. And there is no philisophical reason that your statement is even logical. Below is a partial list of the worlds experts who claim what you deny: I will go with them. The link will reveal the other 90% I had to leave out. Think up a fallacy for continuously stating things as fact when there is no way you would know even if they were.
First, ingenue, all the fallacies I have named are legitimate. I realize in your desperation you throw away any established concept that disagrees with you, but it's beyond tiresome at this point, not to mention embarrassingly immature.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are only going with people who agree with you. This is called 'cherry picking' and it seems you live on it in your arguments. For the sake of saving space Im not going to waste all the readers' times playing quote wars with you, especially since it would be me, lowering myself to your same, weak, fallacious appeal to authority. There are just as many scholars whom I can find on Google to disagree. But, again,it would just be a game.
The Testimony of History and Law [yadda yadda]
Funny, all people who have no way of knowing for sure if it were true [ooh, your own words, how do they taste?]! just people who wish it to be true.
Aside this, I will also point out you are using quotes from people using
the standards of the courtroom, not science, making statements about 'evidence'.. and British court rule evidence, on top of it. The difference is important. But it is, I ken, lost on you. All you see is someone agreeing with you, and using the word 'evidence' in their statements.
It's an irony though, since these people are not considering the FACT that the gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, and the authors are not for whom they are named.. except Luke, possibly [scholars agree] and he was NOT an eyewitness to any of Jesus' life, either. Gods, I don't know how may times this fact has been repeated and then ignored.. by the ignorant.
Tell me, how many of these early British barristers were addicts earlier in life? The correlation would be interesting to note.
