And that doesn't strike you as a silly set of house rules to begin discussion from? As per my edit, that you might have missed ... And if one, for whatevrr reason, insisted on reducing discussion to such a sub-moronic level, how on earth couldone hope to establish one opinion as capable of invalidating another?
It has nothing to do with "house rules". It's just what the scenario says. One opinion can't invalidate another.
Ok then. So that doesn't strike you as a silly scenario to offer as a model for discussing topics? Hence introducing "zero knowledge" as the context for airing opinions is on par with finding a sitting place in the corner of a circular room.
No. In the scenario, A was offering opinion instead of knowledge. There was knowledge available but the scenario specifically stated that A did not use it. The only one introducing "zero knowledge" was A. Feel free to introduce a better one. Just try to understand it better than you understood this one.
I can use equanimity to defend my self against Hell without doing harm to anyone. Its part of a greater teaching I call the lamb of God. Not only can pacifism protect itself, but it's also the best part of happiness. What do you know?
Hence the inherent sub moronic nature of Baldeee's request to introduce it. One in which the house rules don't prohibit the introduction of the form of knowledge. You know, the standard for the very premise of having a discussion on anything.
What is your argument from evidence for rejecting and denying your God Capracus? That's the thread discussion. You have claimed to possess knowledge, but presented none. You have claimed to possess evidence, but presented none. You have claimed to present argument, but have not done so. You have simply rejected and denied your God, for no apparent reason whatsoever. And this is puzzling, on one hand, because so many reasons seem available to you. On the other hand, employing them would present certain problems in the future - and we see that you are aware of that, which is interesting.
Unit Musika, we’ve gone over and over in this thread why I can justify myself as God, but you sill stubbornly refuse to give any account of your own experience for knowing God. The physicist, the doctor, and the Buddhist monk can said to be experts in their respective fields, and through training and experience have acquired knowledge that could be considered special. Like the monk, have you had any training and experience that’s led you to special knowledge regarding a religion? If so, describe what this entailed. As God I already know the answer, but the other biological units would appreciate your reply.
Yes, provide the rational framework that gives me and this shit throwing zoo monkey the capacity to cure peoples ills. It may as well be iced donuts.
I don't know what Baldeee introduced. I'm only addressing your illogical rambling. Be specific. Give a specific example similar to the A-B example that you quoted. Explain what @#$%ing point that you're trying to make.
I see you're working on the basis that if you keep spouting your misunderstanding as if that was what was stated, enough people will agree with you, rather than actually face the fallaciousness of your original dismissal. The deflection is duly noted. And add's to the disappointment.
If you can't be bothered looking at what it was a response to, you don't really have a point of address one way or another. I thought it was obvious and specific. Any assessment of opinions between A to Z is made through the avenue of knowledge. Take away that avenue and you erradicate the very principle of discussion.
It's kind of the popular modus operandi of our resident atheists : they want to discuss philosophy and history but they don't want to study the subject. Aside from shit and monkeys, I'm not sure where the solution lies. I'm guessing that atheists feel it is a type of victory if they can dumb down the subject of religion to such a level that when they discuss it amongst themselves, it is on par with the rambling of the insane. Amazing how broad a subject can become when you introduce special pleading devoid of any reference points of knowledge, huh. BTW, I'm the president of the United States. I have appointed a hamster to be a director of the CIA anf have appointed 2 lamp posts to preside over the high court.
I am working on the basis of you saying claims of knowledge can be assessed by divorcing them from knowledge. Everything that follows from that gaffe is a natural consequence of you insisting on a standard for discussions ... a standard that I am sure you would not tolerate for a vast array of other subjects.
The subject of this thread is your evidence and argument for rejecting your God Capracus. Nobody can study it until it is presented. Which remains my longstanding speculation for the oA theists's motive in doing that, every single time they post on a science forum.
If you dismantle "knowledge", you effectively destroy the table that any such evidence could be presented on.
Meh As if honest discussion was ever tenable for those irrevocably sold out to the principle of identity politics. No doubt you will take this opportunity to try and say something about abrahamic theists that you imagine you are currently arguing with.
