Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Edgarcito

Evidence Types

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That’s my point... it makes no sense to use the evidence type selected by non believers.  We don’t use a material analysis method when we aren’t looking for a material.   

Then why in the name of jesus god damn christ did you start this thread, diplodocus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, having asked a reasonable question (what types of evidence will a non-believer accept?), and having received an answer, why did he then beat a dead horse for 9 pages?  It’s what they call “trolling.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woo woo, with a side salad of passive-aggressive satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TEG said:

Or, having asked a reasonable question (what types of evidence will a non-believer accept?), and having received an answer, why did he then beat a dead horse for 9 pages?  It’s what they call “trolling.”

Because I’m more stubborn than the errant egos here?  It’s not trolling... you were just wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Then why in the name of jesus god damn christ did you start this thread, diplodocus?

To see if there were any of you that wanted to have a real conversation?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Woo woo, with a side salad of passive-aggressive satisfaction.

Must be similar to what lawyers feel... can I call you brother now... or some association I can join.  Just like ole Dad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

To see if there were any of you that wanted to have a real conversation?

 

Oh, the irony! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

To see if there were any of you that wanted to have a real conversation?   

 

No.  This is false. 

 

You asked for our terms and when you got them you shifted the goalposts.

 

The implication of your words, 'a real conversation' reveals your bias.

 

You are inherently biased against non-believers.

 

You never wanted to have a real conversation with us on our terms.

 

So, the opening words of your thread were a lie.

 

This entire thread is a calculated act of gratuitous antagonism on your part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Then why in the name of jesus god damn christ did you start this thread, diplodocus?

 

It was an act of wanton antagonism by someone who thrives on discord, conflict and negativity, Prof.

 

Which is in total contradiction to the aim, purpose and spirit of this forum.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter....I'm not perverse buddy.  I'm going off of memory.  I haven't cracked the Bible nor been to church in years.  I'd destroy you if I were up to speed.  And Dad died of dementia.  My brain is leaning that way....slow on days without major doses of caffeine.  I don't like to discuss when it feels slow.  Take a chill pill sir.  You are much like our old buddy BAA as you demand shit happen in a certain order and way.  It's just a conversation. 

 

I don't dislike any of you.  I am here because I actually like you.  Do y'all understand this?  You have brains.  I like to discuss with people with intelligence.  If you think I am trying to jack people around or hurt more feelings, I have NO interest in that.  None.  I don't know any of you nor care unless you are headed to West Texas with beer.  Discuss if you so desire......don't if you don't.

 

PSA brought to you in part by Serta Perfect Sleeper.....GOOD DAY!

 

Then you've just contradicted yourself, Endgarcito3.

 

Yesterday you wrote that you are antagonistic and like to argue just for the hell of it.

 

Today you're saying that you like to discuss with people of intelligence.

 

Please make up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

Oh, the irony! 

 

Indeed!

 

Ask what others think and then ignore their replies.

 

A helluva way to have a 'real' conversation.

 

More like a deliberate act of wanton disruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Jhn 4:24

Unchecked Copy BoxJhn 4:24 - God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
 
From my standpoint either we should be looking for an analytical method that measures Spirit or looking at evidence that points to Spirit. 
 
Right back at you TEG....wondering why we have pages of people looking for material evidence.....

 

Because you asked for what non-believers will accept and guess what?

 

Material evidence is what non-believers will accept.

 

You asked and you were told but you won't accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

That’s my point... it makes no sense to use the evidence type selected by non believers.  We don’t use a material analysis method when we aren’t looking for a material.   

 

If it makes no sense, then just do the sensible thing and say that you cannot present any evidence within the remit given you by non-believers.

 

It's that simple, E3.

 

Bring this unproductive thread to a swift close.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 10:22 PM, WalterP said:

Ok, a simple question, E3.

 

Are you going to stay within the types of evidence that non-believers find acceptable.

 

Y / N ?

 

Bumped for Endgarcito3's attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 10:41 PM, WalterP said:

Here's something for you to consider, Endgarcito3.

 

Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission (added December 31, 2013)

The purpose of this forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse perspectives can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different perspectives must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a different perspective by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc., then those posts may be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

If you won't abide by the wording of the thread you set up, the Moderators might rule that you've deliberately made this into AN UNPRODUCTIVE THREAD.

 

So, to repeat my easy-to-answer question.

 

Are you going to stay within the evidence types that non-believers find acceptable?

 

Y / N ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bumped for Endgarcito3's attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

See the problem is outside of M, few respond to my reasonably serious response.  The one about the spirit TEG.  Go there.

 

There's little point in writing a reasonably serious response, E3.

 

Especially after you shifted the goalposts of the entire thread.

 

You ****ed up the thread and now you expect us to take anything you write as worthwhile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

To see if there were any of you that wanted to have a real conversation?   

And what did you learn?  That people respond better when you keep the conversation within the established parameters?  Or that everybody who doesn't follow your inane ramblings is an asshole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read this thread in its entirety, and I probably won't, to be honest. But it has come to my attention that @Edgarcito was formerly end3.

 

Welcome back. Sincerely. Your contributions here have been missed, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Because I’m more stubborn than the errant egos here?  It’s not trolling... you were just wrong.  

Not sure how any of us could have been "wrong" when you asked us what we would consider evidence.  It's not really a "right or wrong" situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why weren’t any of you able to say, yeah Ed, there are many types of evidence.  What do you see and why.... what types of evidence do you subscribe to that you think are valid.  This was my real motive... no gotcha, no goal post moving, no violation of debate protocol, just a conversation.  Which furthers the original point actually... I’m about as evident as I can be on Ex C and you couldn’t determine the spirit of my message.  I will say the people near the start of the thread were honest.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

I haven't read this thread in its entirety, and I probably won't, to be honest. But it has come to my attention that @Edgarcito was formerly end3.

 

Welcome back. Sincerely. Your contributions here have been missed, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you D...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Must be similar to what lawyers feel... can I call you brother now... or some association I can join.  Just like ole Dad...

 

Your ongoing daddy issues are of no interest to me, and I choose not to play in your disingenuous and infantile ingratiation game.

 

Time to grow up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

Your ongoing daddy issues are of no interest to me, and I choose not to play in your disingenuous and infantile ingratiation game.

 

Time to grow up.

 

Get real yourself... your original response was biased captain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Get real yourself... your original response was biased captain.  

 

Folks, this one is simply not worth the time.  He has returned with the same emotional, psychological and mental dysfunctions, all of which he pretends are not there.  Instead, he projects them on others, while hiding in his fantasy world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Not sure how any of us could have been "wrong" when you asked us what we would consider evidence.  It's not really a "right or wrong" situation.  

It was dishonest.  Y’all were limiting evidence.  Just have the conversation.  It will either hurt or it won’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.