Beyond Mitt's Underwear: Part 3: The Preexistence, Creation, and Plan for Salvation
Father in Heaven (Elohiem) and His wives live near the star called Kolob on a pair of magic stones. They were once mortal humans just like we are and have retained their physical bodies of flesh and bone, but instead of blood they have “spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood”. At the time of creation
( Read more... )
Reply
And no - you may get more people agreeing with you that the sky is red, but that's irrelevant, because regardless of how many people agree with you, you're still wrong. More particularly, you still can't demonstrate your correctness or defend your assertion, and thus you fail miserably in the face of challenge that *does* address facts.
it's not a tonal argument when I tell you, "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."
Yes, it is. It is the definition of a tone argument. It is an argument that my position is wrong because it is not presented nicely enough, which is, say it with me, A TONE ARGUMENT.
None of which addressed the ACTUAL issue, of course, which I note you have attempted to deflect.
Reply
Reply
Oh, I see, you're just CONCERNED that if I keep talking that way OTHER PEOPLE might blow me off because I'm not nice enough - but not you, no, not you at all, you're just CONCERNED that I might offend OTHER PEOPLE.
Which is to say: it's still a tone argument, but you've couched it as a concern troll.
Not better.
I can totally understand how it might look like that. The truth is that
Oh you WOULD have responded to what was actually said, but you have a REAL LIFE and you're just TOO BUSY so you spent all that time not answering the question but ran out of time to answer the question because you do REAL things, right? Someone who had enough time would obviously not understand the REAL WORLD, right?
Hint: "deflection for dummies" and "how to hide when you're losing an argument" are not guides, nor are they checklists. You should not be running through them and making sure to hit every point.
Reply
Not better.
You= not interested in hearing any kind of constructive feedback (probably just from me, since I cannot imagine you'd be like this in your IRL world), and actively re-construing said constructive feedback as offensive. Check. That's cool, I'll stop.
Hint: "deflection for dummies" and "how to hide when you're losing an argument" are not guides, nor are they checklists. You should not be running through them and making sure to hit every point.
*shrug* I can say that I'm not doing that, but it seems as though you are in "Take offence where none was intended" mode. That's fine - I don't think anything I say will change your mind at all, but I *am* having a lot of fun challenging myself to express myself better.
Reply
Shorter you: "Irrational people are irrational, and therefore my irrationality when discussing rational things is more correct thatn your rationality when discussing rational things"
Actually, no. I was directly refuting that single statement you made ("Rationality", not logic, and it's the only tool that *can* be used, and the only tool that has ever produced results.)that I quoted at the beginning of my comments. This statement is putting words in my mouth and stretching the argument beyond where it was intended.
And no - you may get more people agreeing with you that the sky is red, but that's irrelevant, because regardless of how many people agree with you, you're still wrong. More particularly, you still can't demonstrate your correctness or defend your assertion, and thus you fail miserably in the face of challenge that *does* address facts.And I'm telling you that rational facts only make up a part of the total whole, since emotional facts are just as (and usually more) important than the rational facts. Rationality ( ... )
Reply
So here's where all of this applies on the level of our larger discussion:
Religion is emotional. Being that emotion is more important than pure rationality, I see how religion provides emotional support and healing to people on a level that atheism (or non-religion) cannot match.
But you try to justify your position of atheism with pseudo-rationality disguising the passionate emotion underneath, all while attacking me with the claim that I am being irrational and emotional about a rational subject, when you are the one that is actually guilty of it (not saying that I am not, but I've never claimed it).
In other words, you reject any emotional evidence that I may bring to the table, while whole-heartedly embracing your own emotions as absolutely accurate and trust-worthy at the same time. Indeed, your emotions are proof that you are right and I am wrong, because they are your emotions ( ... )
Reply
That is such a fantastically shitty argument. I'm pretty sure that "I will die if I don't eat, and also I enjoy food" is both 100% rational and 100% going to get me to eat, specifically because I am rational. Someone irrational is more likely to say, "Oh, I don't need to eat, because the biological science of how bodies work is just heresay and actually I can live off air and the sweet sight of daisies in my garden!" And then die. Me, who knows, rationally, that nutrition is essential for my body? I eat ( ... )
Reply
Related!
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't do therapy with insects. I don't care whether they have emotions are not, my statement only applies to people. If it applies to something other than people, cool. If it doesn't, cool. Either way, whether insects have emotions is utterly irrelevant.
Reply
But not only have you failed to demonstrate that it applies to people, you have stated it as a universal that applies universally and thus applies to people.
So which is it: Either you're inventing a special category that only people fall into and failing to distinguish it from non-people, or you're taking as fact a a definitely-false universal?
Either way you are, of course, wrong - but the question of HOW you have failed to think is more interesting, to me, than what specific incorrect thing you're thinking at the moment.
So which failure are you indulging currently: Special pleading, or asserting a universal in the case of a falsified specific?
Reply
Citation needed.
Without emotion, you do not care about anything, including survival.
Citation needed, especially since your universal statement is trivially falsified by absolutely simple counterexamples.
They are both wonderful tools
One of which you not only refuse to use, but have denigrated as completely useless in this very comment thread
that produce different results.
Be honest. One produces "results that only match reality". One produces "results that only match fantasy". Your irrational belief that fantasy is more real than reality does not change that, in, fact, that you are wrong, and reality is more real than fantasy
EDIT: Wow, Typo city tonight.
Reply
Except you've never demonstrated which God you're asking, if God actually answers, or even if the "answers" you get come from God. You have *no clue* if your answers come from God, Satan, Xenu, or if you just made them up.
I went to the real source
You don't know what "the real source" *IS*. You can't even explain how you concluded that your source is the real source, let alone how you tested it once you thought it might be.
No, I've had answers to questions, problems solved, miracles occur, and all kinds of things outside of the very narrow window of questions your comment implies.
And you've never considered that God might, y'know, do something you couldn't do on your own, or that wouldn't have happened anyway? Those things ARE testable, by the way, and God has failed every single one of those tests.
to tell you of that experience would require from me a certain amount of vulnerability and going into some detail concerning mistakes and weaknesses of mine that I would really only share ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment