Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

I tend to agree. When I looked at the problem LITERALLY I could not derive an answer due to the mangled presentation of the question. However, when I put on my "Inter-galactic decoder" and made assumptions about what he was attempting to mean, I got the answer 9. Sloppy thinking, at best.

Since the guy was for some reason trying to prove my mathematic background wrong I assumed it was a trick question, instead of just one so ambiguous that it is almost incoherent. I thought it was a trick so I never attempted to find a numeric value because that was not what was asked for specifically. I thought if I had done so he would say fooled you "I said it was X up front". I should have known it was only an unsophisticated mangling of a very simplistic example. Now if he throws me triple integrals or Boolean differential calculus I may be stumped but the only challenge in his problem was the way it was worded. I think there was three correct answers to his problem. I gave two, you gave the third. Thanks for the sentiments.

 

[FearGod]

I tend to agree. When I looked at the problem LITERALLY I could not derive an answer due to the mangled presentation of the question. However, when I put on my "Inter-galactic decoder" and made assumptions about what he was attempting to mean, I got the answer 9. Sloppy thinking, at best.

No,it depends on ones intellegence.

for example Monk of reason has solved it perfectly except if you think that both of us were conspiring.

 

[YmirGF]

No,it depends on ones intellegence.

for example Monk of reason has solved it perfectly except if you think that both of us were conspiring.

what part of

However, when I put on my "Inter-galactic decoder" and made assumptions about what he was attempting to mean, I got the answer 9. Sloppy thinking, at best.

don't you get?

 

[1robin]

No,it depends on ones intellegence.

for example Monk of reason has solved it perfectly except if you think that both of us were conspiring.

Yes it depends on intelligence. It depends on you having enough intelligence to form a problem with clear, instead of ambiguous demands and contexts. My answer is absolutely correct. (9 is absolutely correct) and the other answer I gave is right. It is not my fault you screwed the problem up so bad it has at least three answers. It depends on you doing what you didn't. Getting the context clear. Make a concise problem and get concise answers, make an ambiguous problem and get ambiguous answers. Are you going to obsess on his all day? This is far too typical. Screw up a test so bad it has three answers. Declare the person who got two of the three right is an idiot in spite of having 190 semester hours in math and science. No wonder every battle where Israel wipes out the opposing army is an Islamic victory. If you can't get back to the original issues and in from a problem you screwed up, I can't justify wasting more time with this.

You said this, I didn't:
Assume x = Number of livestocks
What is the actual number of the livestocks

You math problem is not even grammatically correct.

I tell you what. If you still feel you made a problem with only one answer. I will have my Phd in engineering look at it and tell you. However what does he know. He only has 230 semester hours and three degrees. He is only paid 175 thousand a year to actually do mathematics for information theory.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes and I was talking to a Muslim who grants revelation and grants the Bible's authority. Between two people who grant revelation my claims are factual and since I have met the risen Christ it is a personal fact on top of that. It is the same as if two of the astronauts were discussing the facts of what they saw there even if no record of them exists. Is there any chance we will discussing anything besides semantics any time soon?

You have claimed many things to be true and if we are going to technically restrict terms by arbitrary hyperbolic standards then yet again you are being hypocritical because no fact you have ever claimed is known to be factual (no matter what type or about what). It is also an example of double standards. This is hypocrisy on steroids.

Then why is the first tactic your side displays is the immediate stripping of the context a claim came in and the inserting of it into one it did not?


Not stupid. Irrationally obstinate and with a selective ability to grant normal word usage or restrict it based on preference.


So you will not debate the most influential book in history but instead are perfectly willing to debate irrelevant semantics based on arbitrarily hyper-restrictive at will interpretations of common word usages which were straightened out 4 posts ago (and then to top it of hypocritically accuse others of double standards). How do I get off this train of triviality? I see where your interests lie (I just remembered what your posts in recent memory have all been about) and I am not interested in person commentary. If you actually have anything to offer concerning the real issues at hand then post them, If not I have no interest in continuing this futile discussion further.

So you're not going to address any of things I brought up, as usual.

Just try and bury it under a mountain of cow manure and hope no one notices the smell.

Haven't you noticed that no one here ever falls for that?

 

[1robin]

So you're not going to address any of things I brought up, as usual.

That is not usual but that is what I did then. When I saw al of your initial statements had nothing whatever to do with anything meaningful I gave up on the rest. I remember that every post you have made to me recently was the same and had little reason to continue on.

Just try and bury it under a mountain of cow manure and hope no one notices the smell.

That is exactly where they belonged.

Haven't you noticed that no one here ever falls for that?

I have noticed that no one on any side ever concedes anything the other side claims with few exceptions. Your side of the aisle never does, even in the slightest or clearest truth. It is as if a non-theists or liberal lets one ray of light through and the whole house of cards will fall, but neither side does so, often. If you can dispense with the side bars and personal commentary I will debate you. I will not do so if that is not done.

 

[Quagmire]

That is not usual but that is what I did then. When I saw al of your initial statements had nothing whatever to do with anything meaningful I gave up on the rest. I remember that every post you have made to me recently was the same and had little reason to continue on.

Uh huh. Anytime you don't have a viable answer for something it's because it's "unmeaningful" or "irrelevant" or "off-topic" or "not worth addressing".

I think everyone in here knows by now that in your lexicon, those are all just synonyms for "I have no viable response for that".

That is exactly where they belonged.

OK. Just keep piling the manure on there and lets see what grows.

I have noticed that no one on any side ever concedes anything the other side claims with few exceptions.

If you know you aren't fooling anyone, why do you keep trying?

Your side

My side being what? The people who AREN'T here to spread propaganda and mis-information?

of the aisle never does even in the slightest and clearest truth.

I've seen numerable slights come out of your posts, but I've yet to see anything I'd call truth.

It is as if a non-theists or liberal lets on ray of light through and the whole house of cards will fall, but neither side does so often.

I'm a theist, you already knew that ( I have a feeling that's the main reason you and I don't get along. ), and just for the record: I don't consider "non-theist" an insult. I know plenty of non-theists and atheists who, IMO, are much closer to God than a lot of self-described "theists".

IMO, an atheist who cares about things like justice, truth, honor, compassion, etc., is going to be doing God's will just by virtue of the fact that they have the same agenda that He has.

Whereas a self-proclaimed theist who doesn't care about any of those things is actually one of these people:

Matt.7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If you can dispense with the side bars and personal commentary I will debate you. I will not do so if that is not done.

No you won't. You refuse to engage in anything resembling honest debate with anyone in here.

 

[Quagmire]

I also think it's funny how you just assume that non-theist and liberal are the same thing:

It is as if a non-theists or liberal lets on ray of light through and the whole house of cards will fall, but neither side does so often.

Makes me even more certain that your personal religion is more a matter of political rather than spiritual beliefs.

Sort of like the Pharisees*.


(*in the Gospels)

 

[1robin]

Uh huh. Anytime you don't have a viable answer for something it's because it's "unmeaningful" or "irrelevant" or "off-topic" or "not worth addressing".

Well let's just examine that claim. First of all you have no idea what everyone here thinks. This appeal to fictional people who agree with you is a hallmark of a failed argument. You primary diversion has been my claim about Christ being resurrected as a fact was wrong. I tried to allow you to make this mistake because I sympathize with the rational. It is wrong but I treated it as if true. I have experienced Christ directly. You can't experience dead people. It is a fact. Revelation is an agreed fact between who I was talking to and me. You said I could not use the word fact unless it is a demonstrable fact. That is absolutely and utterly wrong. I can claim anything known to me as a fact. However this one had enough reason in it that even though completely wrong I responded to it. Where I stop doing so is when personal commentary dominates a post and in your case does so almost exclusively. Nothing you have ever said has ever dreamed it stumped me. I wish it had. I am here for a challenge. This is not it. So stop claiming hollow victories that do not exist outside your head and which even if they did exist you would have no way of knowing they do anyway. If I start seeing claim after claim that is personal commentary, sarcasm, and emotionally derived positions dressed in bad attempts at logic I will ignore them (as this has become all that you do). I can even take a little sarcasm if made with rational arguments about the ISSUES. However not when it is the other way around.

I think everyone in here knows by now that in your lexicon, those are all just synonyms for "I have no viable response for that".

No one knows this but me. Claiming that you know what you can't possibly even if it was true and inventing imaginary cohorts in the dishonestly is truly meaningless. You have no access to my motivations. None.

OK. Just keep piling the manure on there and lets see what grows.

It appears the rest is just more of what I said I would not respond to above. I'm out. I can't even pry a rational argument from you despite my best efforts. You just can't do anything besides produce emotionally based rhetoric can you?

 

[1robin]

I also think it's funny how you just assume that non-theist and liberal are the same thing:

I think it is funny how you think that is what I said, when it wasn't. Most non-theists are liberals. Just as most people who are IMO incorrect about a few major issues are incorrect about most. Again IMO they are all symptoms of the same cause. A lack of faith. There are countless ways to track this and see it in operation but since it is personal I will not contract an entire post out of it as some other do.

Makes me even more certain that your personal religion is more a matter of political rather than spiritual beliefs.

It is impossible for you to claim anything as wrong as this. I have no idea how anyone can think this is possible anyway. It is also a genetic fallacy. My faith produced an experience with God no matter what the genesis of it was. It is also something you have no access to. Claiming what you can't possibly know even if it was true is intellectual dishonesty. My faith came despite all other preferences. I did not want it to be true. In fact if God existed I hated him (which is another example of how irrational atheism is). I was dragged kicking and screaming by evidence and logic against my wishes until it had become so shocking obvious the Bible was correct that I could not find any justification left in my resistance to justify my emotionally based stubbornness (clothed in false reasoning) any longer. I accepted Christ and was in God's presence for three days. Other asked me what was different even though I mentioned nothing, and was so much in shock I did not want to explain. Others in my apartment felt the event and mentioned it to me before I said anything to them. Since this is wasted on you I will terminate it here.

Sort of like the Pharisees*.


(*in the Gospels)

So your best argument in defense of Muhammad in a Muhammad thread is to claim to know what you do not. Claim something that between us I am the only one who has access to it. Make up the worst explanations of how I came to faith as it is possible to contrive. Link things that are unrelated. Cough up personal commentary and search for anything you for some reason think will bother me and not even attempt to provide the slightest hint of evidence or reason. Muhammad needs no critics if your his defense.

So two posts and not one single claim related to an issue in the thread, no evidence, a whole bunch of things you do not know that are wrong, and a general hostility. Is it any wonder I call what you have posted in recent memory meaningless and irrelevant?

I am done with you until you make a claim you actually have access to about the issue the thread is about.

By the way. The Pharisees problem was they had intellectual agreements to historical propositions instead of born again faith. This has nothing whatever to do with me. My failings are not of that type nor of any type you have mentioned. Your batting a thousand on getting everything wrong. Irrelevant, wrong, intellectually dishonest, claims to contrived false victories, and sarcasm. Pretty typical and completely unproductive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well let's just examine that claim. First of all you have no idea what everyone here thinks. This appeal to fictional people who agree with you is a hallmark of a failed argument.

I'm not fictional, and I certainly agree with Quagmire that you avoid answering direct questions, especially if they counter your postion, and that you often ridicule those questions as dumb or unimportant, etc., you duck them.

 

[1robin]

I'm not fictional, and I certainly agree with Quagmire that you avoid answering direct questions, especially if they counter your postion, and that you often ridicule those questions as dumb or unimportant, etc., you duck them.

Your condemnation is the best approval possible. However I did not say there are not people on the other side from me, theists, and conservatives that do not agree with him. Christianity has a long history of triumphing over even those that set about to kill us. The greatest of empires tried it once and God converted the entire nation. Some of the greatest Christians in history set out to prove Christianity wrong and became Christians because they could not do so and no one can. I do not think the disagreement of anyone here or everyone here is much of a threat to the truth billions on my side hold. I said he has no idea if he was right. He nor you have any idea what everyone else thinks. I figured the only other person to claim this would of course agree with the only other person who has. No surprise here. I would start to worry however if I was on the same side as you. As long as me and Ambiguous guy do not agree I am on safe ground.

 

[Quagmire]

Well let's just examine that claim. First of all you have no idea what everyone here thinks. This appeal to fictional people who agree with you is a hallmark of a failed argument. You primary diversion has been my claim about Christ being resurrected as a fact was wrong. I tried to allow you to make this mistake because I sympathize with the rational. It is wrong but I treated it as if true. I have experienced Christ directly. You can't experience dead people. It is a fact. Revelation is an agreed fact between who I was talking to and me. You said I could not use the word fact unless it is a demonstrable fact. That is absolutely and utterly wrong. I can claim anything known to me as a fact. However this one had enough reason in it that even though completely wrong I responded to it. Where I stop doing so is when personal commentary dominates a post and in your case does so almost exclusively. Nothing you have ever said has ever dreamed it stumped me. I wish it had. I am here for a challenge. This is not it. So stop claiming hollow victories that do not exist outside your head and which even if they did exist you would have no way of knowing they do anyway. If I start seeing claim after claim that is personal commentary, sarcasm, and emotionally derived positions dressed in bad attempts at logic I will ignore them (as this has become all that you do). I can even take a little sarcasm if made with rational arguments about the ISSUES. However not when it is the other way around.

No one knows this but me. Claiming that you know what you can't possibly even if it was true and inventing imaginary cohorts in the dishonestly is truly meaningless. You have no access to my motivations. None.


It appears the rest is just more of what I said I would not respond to above. I'm out. I can't even pry a rational argument from you despite my best efforts. You just can't do anything besides produce emotionally based rhetoric can you?

I think it is funny how you think that is what I said, when it wasn't. Most non-theists are liberals. Just as most people who are IMO incorrect about a few major issues are incorrect about most. Again IMO they are all symptoms of the same cause. A lack of faith. There are countless ways to track this and see it in operation but since it is personal I will not contract an entire post out of it as some other do.



It is impossible for you to claim anything as wrong as this. I have no idea how anyone can think this is possible anyway. It is also a genetic fallacy. My faith produced an experience with God no matter what the genesis of it was. It is also something you have no access to. Claiming what you can't possibly know even if it was true is intellectual dishonesty. My faith came despite all other preferences. I did not want it to be true. In fact if God existed I hated him (which is another example of how irrational atheism is). I was dragged kicking and screaming by evidence and logic against my wishes until it had become so shocking obvious the Bible was correct that I could not find any justification left in my resistance to justify my emotionally based stubbornness (clothed in false reasoning) any longer. I accepted Christ and was in God's presence for three days. Other asked me what was different even though I mentioned nothing, and was so much in shock I did not want to explain. Others in my apartment felt the event and mentioned it to me before I said anything to them. Since this is wasted on you I will terminate it here.



So your best argument in defense of Muhammad in a Muhammad thread is to claim to know what you do not. Claim something that between us I am the only one who has access to it. Make up the worst explanations of how I came to faith as it is possible to contrive. Link things that are unrelated. Cough up personal commentary and search for anything you for some reason think will bother me and not even attempt to provide the slightest hint of evidence or reason. Muhammad needs no critics if your his defense.

So two posts and not one single claim related to an issue in the thread, no evidence, a whole bunch of things you do not know that are wrong, and a general hostility. Is it any wonder I call what you have posted in recent memory meaningless and irrelevant?

I am done with you until you make a claim you actually have access to about the issue the thread is about.

By the way. The Pharisees problem was they had intellectual agreements to historical propositions instead of born again faith. This has nothing whatever to do with me. My failings are not of that type nor of any type you have mentioned. Your batting a thousand on getting everything wrong. Irrelevant, wrong, intellectually dishonest, claims to contrived false victories, and sarcasm. Pretty typical and completely unproductive.

I also believe that you purposely punish people for calling you on games by posting huge chunks of meaningless and previously addressed rhetoric that anyone with any aversion to disingenuous sanctimony would find painful to read.

So I'm not going to.

Let me know if you can ever manage to get to the point in 500 words or less.

 

[1robin]

I also believe that you purposely punish people for calling you on games by posting huge chunks of meaningless and previously addressed rhetoric that anyone with any aversion to disingenuous sanctimony would find painful to read.

So I'm not going to.

Let me know if you can ever manage to get to the point in 500 words or less.

So is this circus over with? The amount of words required depends on how wrong the claims I respond to are. How in the world have I punished anyone on here for anything? It is your side and you especially that sticks to personal sarcasm so exclusively.

 

[Quagmire]

So is this circus over with?

Not as long as you're still here.

The amount of words required depends on how wrong the claims I respond to are.

No it doesn't. The number of words you use depends on how much there is for you to dance around.

How in the world have I punished anyone on here for anything?

In every passive/aggressive way you could possibly think of.

It is your side and you especially that sticks to personal sarcasm so exclusively.

Please stop bashing theists. We have just as much right to be here as you do.

 

[1robin]

Not as long as you're still here.

Just when I thought I was out, Quagmire sucked me back in. I just noticed how appropriate your name is.

No it doesn't. The number of words you use depends on how much there is for you to dance around.

Again claiming to know my motivations which you do not know and I do is a waste of your and what is infinitely worse my times.

In every passive/aggressive way you could possibly think of.

I have not begun to passively/aggress. Whatever that is?

Please stop trolling theists.

That is not even a coherent thought and is one of the most hypocritical statements in recent memory. What was that supposedly based on, or mean? I am a theist.

 

[Quagmire]

Just when I thought I was out, Quagmire sucked me back in. I just noticed how appropriate your name is.

That's OK, I just noticed how ironic you user title is.

Again claiming to know my motivations which you do not know and I do is a waste of your and what is infinitely worse my times.

Are we speaking in code now?

I have not begun to passively/aggress.

So it gets worse?

Whatever that is?

Well, feigning ignorance of terms for instance. . .

That is not even a coherent thought and is one of the most hypocritical statements in recent memory. What was that supposedly based on, or mean?

. . . feigning incomprehension of other people's points for another instance.

I am a theist.

I'm Batman. Tell your friends about me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, feigning ignorance of terms for instance. . .

I really don't think he's feigning. In the past, I've had to sit him down and explain what a 'straight line' is, among various other common terms.

It's my best guess that he really doesn't know what 'passive-aggressive' means. Seriously. You probably need to explain it for him.

 

[1robin]

That's OK, I just noticed how ironic you user title is.

Well I see the last refuge, the cheapest of cheap shots has been played. However it does not even work. Christians are the group that admits moral failure more than any other. Even if I have had no other choice than to respond personally to what was 100% personal claims, despite the fact you offered no other alternative even despite my efforts to stop this mess, I still admit my failure. So where is the irony exactly.

Are we speaking in code now?

English and logic may be a code to you but they are commonalities to me.

So it gets worse?

There is no worse than these posts. Which brings up a question. What are you getting from this. I at least started talking about actual issues, I have even tried to get you to start to do so, yet it has been non-stop rhetoric. Why? What do you gain by this? Why is this valuable to you?

Well, feigning ignorance of terms for instance. . .

I know what the term means but I seldom know to what purpose you apply them.

. . . feigning incomprehension of other people's points for another instance.

See the above.

I'm Batman. Tell your friends about me.

No, I do not think I will. Yet another example of claiming to know what you can't and I can. Is this a career path or just a compulsion? So was the original claim. They are so frequent even I can't note them all.

 

[1robin]

I really don't think he's feigning. In the past, I've had to sit him down and explain what a 'straight line' is, among various other common terms.

When did this occur? If I had ever personal met someone like you I do not think I would forget it.

It's my best guess that he really doesn't know what 'passive-aggressive' means. Seriously. You probably need to explain it for him.

Your wrong. I know what it means, I have no idea what he used it to mean. The misapplication of terms, claiming to know what either of you can possibly know, and the mangling of definitions is now so rampant I no longer recognize an exception.


This has been fun. By fun I mean unproductive, a waste of time, no defense of Muhammad or anything else, business as usual, and just plain silly. Have a good one and if futility is liked as much by you guys as it seems to be I know you will. If either of you ever get back to the threads purpose I am buying someone a Daniel Webster cigar. I will not buy one just yet.