MAYBE WE WERE MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE!!

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

No.  You can read.  So you can go back to your own post and see for yourself where and how you gave that indication.

 

 

 

Show me.

[duderonomy]

On 12/15/2022 at 11:44 PM, duderonomy said:

 

Prof, your response here is full of shit. Is it on purpose? Are you lazy?  Show me where I said that the christian (or Christian, for those that prefer proper spelling)  god (same) is less of a person than a dog or a Goldfish.

 

Show me.  

 

 

 

This first please, Walter.   We're all on the same side here, right?  

[walterpthefirst]

32 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

This first please, Walter.   We're all on the same side here, right?  

 

Thank you for being polite, Duderonomy.

 

But I must politely decline by pointing out that I have precedence over you.

 

Your dealings with the Prof date from Friday 16th.

 

But on Wednesday 14th I asked you this.

 

And since we are talking about accepting the terms and conditions of something, who are you to decide that we can't discuss this with any degree of rationality?

Let's see you present some evidence for that before we just accept your assertion.

More than the next assertion that I am disbelieving in the wrong god.

 

So please answer my question and also provide said evidence.  Thank you.

 

 

This precedence applies no matter which side we are on.

 

That's because in this forum you and I are equals and share exactly the same status as ordinary members.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

21 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for being polite, Duderonomy.

 

But I must politely decline by pointing out that I have precedence over you.

 

So please answer my question and also provide said evidence.  Thank you.

 

This precedence applies no matter which side we are on.

 

 

 

Being a bit pretentious, aren't we?

[duderonomy]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for being polite, Duderonomy.

 

But I must politely decline by pointing out that I have precedence over you.

 

Your dealings with the Prof date from Friday 16th.

 

But on Wednesday 14th I asked you this.

 

And since we are talking about accepting the terms and conditions of something, who are you to decide that we can't discuss this with any degree of rationality?

Let's see you present some evidence for that before we just accept your assertion.

More than the next assertion that I am disbelieving in the wrong god.

 

So please answer my question and also provide said evidence.  Thank you.

 

 

This precedence applies no matter which side we are on.

 

That's because in this forum you and I are equals and share exactly the same status as ordinary members.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Walter, are apples and oranges the same?

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Being a bit pretentious, aren't we?

 

Do we let Christians get away with making unsupported assertions?

 

Do we let Ex-Christians get away with the same thing?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter, are apples and oranges the same?

 

 

 

 

Please check out Matthew 21 : 23 to 27, Duderonomy.

 

In that passage the chief priests and elders of the temple asked Jesus by what authority he was doing things.  He met them halfway, saying that he would answer their question if they answered his.  But they couldn't answer his question and so he didn't answer theirs.

 

You see how that works?  Both parties came to an agreement and both parties stuck to it.  It was a one-for-one agreement.  One party does one thing and then it is the turn of the other party to respond.  Neither side gets to add new things, make fresh requests or pose new questions.

 

In the spirit of that biblical principle and in the spirit of equality that exists here in this forum between us I therefore request that you respond to the request that I made to you a week ago.

 

Here it is.

 

And since we are talking about accepting the terms and conditions of something, who are you to decide that we can't discuss this with any degree of rationality?

Let's see you present some evidence for that before we just accept your assertion.

More than the next assertion that I am disbelieving in the wrong god.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

Walter, for context, my apples and oranges remark is in regard to you believing that our mutual waiting for answers are of the same weight, and that there is a proper timeline for responses considering all of the variables involved in responding.

 

I think we (you) are derailing this thread with this stuff Walter, so I will just wait here for Prof to show me where I said what he said I said.  Then I'll answer you, and in the meantime unless I come up with some brilliant thoughts on the topic I'm pretty much done with this one.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Walter, for context, my apples and oranges remark is in regard to you believing that our mutual waiting for answers are of the same weight, and that there is a proper timeline for responses considering all of the variables involved in responding.

 

I think we (you) are derailing this thread with this stuff Walter, so I will just wait here for Prof to show me where I said what he said I said.  Then I'll answer you, and in the meantime unless I come up with some brilliant thoughts on the topic I'm pretty much done with this one.

 

The Prof won't be showing you where you said what you said.

 

Which means that you won't answering me.

 

Which means that I'm done with you.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The Prof won't be showing you where you said what you said.

 

Which means that you won't answering me.

 

Which means that I'm done with you.

 

This impasse exists, Walt, as a result of duderonomy's refusal to engage us in genuine discussion.  Had he taken the time to read what I wrote, he would have realized that the answer I have already given to him, "No," is the only possible answer I can give to his demand.  He demands that I show him where he said what I said he said.  But that simply cannot be done; because I never said he said anything.  So he is demanding to be shown something that simply is not there.

 

Had duderonomy paid attention,  he might have noticed that I said he indicated something; and right after saying that he indicated it, I immediately explained how that indication was given.  Indeed, even whilst answering to his demand, I followed the "No" with a reiteration of my stance by stating that he could read his own post and see exactly where, and how, he gave that indication.  

 

My choice of words was deliberate and considered; specifically because I knew that what I chose to interpret from his words was not what he intended to say.  Rather, it was one of several possible inferences. Duderonomy's words, unfortunately, are seldom, if ever, deliberate and considered.  Were duderonomy interested in genuine discourse, his response might have been something along the lines of, "Hey, that's not the indication I intended to give; you're mistaken."  And had he taken such an approach, I might have been inclined to indulge him for a few rounds.

 

As it happened, though, his response was that of the typical, garden-variety troll that he is.  He sulked for a few days, then came back insisting that his perceived grievances were more important than anyone else's.  And now he is attempting to hold this entire thread hostage until I give him what he is too stupid to realize he already has, which is the only answer possible for his demand: "No."

 

If he is not mature enough to accept "No" for an answer, then perhaps it is time for all of us to be done with him.

[duderonomy]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:46 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If the christian god is less of a person than a dog or a goldfish (as you indicate here he is, due to his limitations and the inability to change his self-determination),

 

You know Prof, maybe you are right after all.  You didn't actually say it.  I'll give you that.  I'm sorry that I inferred what you were inferring.

 

Plus, anyone is free to look at my profile and see how long I've been here and if I've made any contributions to this website or not.   What a troll I am, right?

 

I don't know why you have such a hard on for me since I came back Prof, but be done with me if you must.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Plus, anyone is free to look at my profile and see how long I've been here and if I've made any contributions to this website or not.   What a troll I am, right?

 

Perhaps you don't see yourself as a troll, but you sure enjoy the game of, "Now Iv'e got you, you S.O.B."  It appears you want to be booted out.

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This impasse exists, Walt, as a result of duderonomy's refusal to engage us in genuine discussion.  Had he taken the time to read what I wrote, he would have realized that the answer I have already given to him, "No," is the only possible answer I can give to his demand.  He demands that I show him where he said what I said he said.  But that simply cannot be done; because I never said he said anything.  So he is demanding to be shown something that simply is not there.

 

Had duderonomy paid attention,  he might have noticed that I said he indicated something; and right after saying that he indicated it, I immediately explained how that indication was given.  Indeed, even whilst answering to his demand, I followed the "No" with a reiteration of my stance by stating that he could read his own post and see exactly where, and how, he gave that indication.  

 

My choice of words was deliberate and considered; specifically because I knew that what I chose to interpret from his words was not what he intended to say.  Rather, it was one of several possible inferences. Duderonomy's words, unfortunately, are seldom, if ever, deliberate and considered.  Were duderonomy interested in genuine discourse, his response might have been something along the lines of, "Hey, that's not the indication I intended to give; you're mistaken."  And had he taken such an approach, I might have been inclined to indulge him for a few rounds.

 

As it happened, though, his response was that of the typical, garden-variety troll that he is.  He sulked for a few days, then came back insisting that his perceived grievances were more important than anyone else's.  And now he is attempting to hold this entire thread hostage until I give him what he is too stupid to realize he already has, which is the only answer possible for his demand: "No."

 

If he is not mature enough to accept "No" for an answer, then perhaps it is time for all of us to be done with him.

 

Thank you explaining this, Prof.

 

An indication of the nature of my particular impasse with Duderonomy can be seen in what he just wrote.

 

 

Plus, anyone is free to look at my profile and see how long I've been here and if I've made any contributions to this website or not.   What a troll I am, right?

 

 

The duration of membership or quantity of contributions to this forum doesn't entitle any ordinary member to demand anything of any other ordinary member.  The newest member who joined just today and who has posted nothing shares exactly the same status as the longest-standing member who has thousands of posts.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I suppose we all, at times, rest on what laurels we feel might support our weight.  And perhaps this is the image of god in us; for didn't god himself also present his curriculum vitae to Job instead of giving him genuine answers to his questions?

[duderonomy]

On 12/23/2022 at 8:15 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I suppose we all, at times, rest on what laurels we feel might support our weight.  And perhaps this is the image of god in us; for didn't god himself also present his curriculum vitae to Job instead of giving him genuine answers to his questions?

 

Exactly.  Thank you.

[duderonomy]

On 12/23/2022 at 2:01 AM, Weezer said:

Perhaps you don't see yourself as a troll, but you sure enjoy the game of, "Now Iv'e got you, you S.O.B."  It appears you want to be booted out.

 

Wow, am I really the only one doing this here?  Damn. Who knew?

[RankStranger]

See, this is what happens when you run off all the Christians.  What would Professor Dawkins think of this behavior?? 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

On 1/3/2023 at 4:00 PM, RankStranger said:

See, this is what happens when you run off all the Christians.  What would Professor Dawkins think of this behavior?? 

 

 

He'd probably approve of it, not that I care what he would think.

[RankStranger]

17 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

He'd probably approve of it, not that I care what he would think.

 

Fair enough.  He didn't mind stirring the pot back when GamerGate was burning down the New Atheist movement.

 

IMO the whole Atheist movement has never really come to terms with what happened there.