Another sad case

Israel

BANNED
From either "side", at least as pertaining to what may appear as sides in these discussions, can come the observation/contention/accusation aimed at the other, in the most general of senses..."But man should not be this way"

Whether it come from side "A" or side "B" matters not as in,

"Man should not be superstitious and given to certain practice untenable by reason..."(as reason is adjudged by the speaker)

or (in some context spoken)

"Man should not be unbelieving but have faith..."
(Again, as faith is adjudged by the speaker)

What appears to be at odds (though may not be at all) is a seeking of approach to find man in his true (and truest) estate, consistent in being what it means "to be man".

In one sense it becomes apparent (if there is any merit to my observations) that each "side" holds in view some archetype of both "normal man" and "defective man", finding basis for the accusation by the standing upon one...to accuse, or contradict the other.
If this is so, each is seeking to define what man is.

"Man is reasonable and should be so" (By some assumption contained this excludes "faith")
or
"Man should have faith" (Likewise by assumption this either reduces, or is to some exclusion of reason as the paramount constituent)

But the overarching and fundamental agreement is seen (that essentially causes line of division to seeming "sides" to evaporate) is this: (and not without consequence)

The agreement in toto is that man may exist in being as he ought not.

Each seeming side (that truly make of themselves one true side) in total agreement that man has the ability...to be...in being...falling short of what man is "to be".
 
Last edited:

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
You must acknowledge that they all exist merely because you cannot prove they do not exist.
That’s the fallacy of insecurity.

I’m not even concerned if the rest exist or not.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
Last I checked Ford, Dodge, Toyota, Nissan, GMC, etc are all available for test drives. You can go to thier dealerships and they are on the lots.

How many test drives have you taken in a 2018 Flying Spaghetti Monster Edition 2500 with a Flux Capacitor from Yaweh Motor Corporation?

In your world, you would have us all believe that truck is available for sale merely because nobody can prove it isn't.

And you argue that is a legitimate excuse.
No. Just saying I don’t need a process.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
That’s the fallacy of insecurity.

I’m not even concerned if the rest exist or not.
I don't care what your concern is, we are talking about your argument. They all exist because you cannot prove that they don't. Period. You just refuse to acknowledge the others.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
No. Just saying I don’t need a process.
But you use things that are proven to exist as your example of things that at best are More Likely Than Not, Do not Exist. Horrible Analogies.

Does Yaweh Motors exist? Do they sell a Flying Spaghetti Monster 2500 with Flux Capacitor power?
By your claims, it does exist because nobody can prove it does not.
And, I think you even realize how stupid it is, but cannot bear to admit it out in the open.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
I don't care what your concern is, we are talking about your argument. They all exist because you cannot prove that they don't. Period. You just refuse to acknowledge the others.
I think we are in the same boat lol. We both “argue from ignorance”. The difference is I don’t even care if they exist or not. So they’re no concern to me.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
But you use things that are proven to exist as your example of things that at best are More Likely Than Not, Do not Exist. Horrible Analogies.

Does Yaweh Motors exist? Do they sell a Flying Spaghetti Monster 2500 with Flux Capacitor power?
By your claims, it does exist because nobody can prove it does not.
And, I think you even realize how stupid it is, but cannot bear to admit it out in the open.
My analogies are simple for a reason, the point is still the same, I don’t need a process to decide or rule out for security. I made a decision based on my experiences with something, not based on experiences with something else. Something else does not even get my time waisted on it.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Lack of evidence.
No court in the Land holds people liable because of a lack of evidence.

"Therefore your Honor, he is guilty because he wasn't there and he didn't do it...."
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
I think we are in the same boat lol. We both “argue from ignorance”. The difference is I don’t even care if they exist or not. So they’re no concern to me.
I argue from Evidence.
Big Difference
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
I think we are in the same boat lol. We both “argue from ignorance”. The difference is I don’t even care if they exist or not. So they’re no concern to me.

Let's cut to the chase here.
Using your Argument from Ignorance rule, with care or concern not being factors, do all those other Gods exist using your rule?
Yes or No, it really is that simple.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
Let's cut to the chase here.
Using your Argument from Ignorance rule, with care or concern not being factors, do all those other Gods exist using your rule?
Yes or No, it really is that simple.
You and I have went down the same road several tines. My God said have no other gods before him. Why would I say no other gods exist?
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
Let's cut to the chase here.
Using your Argument from Ignorance rule, with care or concern not being factors, do all those other Gods exist using your rule?
Yes or No, it really is that simple.
Now using your process and evidence where you took it one God further, prove Gid does not exist with 100% certainty. And we all know that a lack of someone else’s evidence is not sufficient.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
My analogies are simple for a reason, the point is still the same, I don’t need a process to decide or rule out for security. I made a decision based on my experiences with something, not based on experiences with something else. Something else does not even get my time wasted on it

You waste more time avoiding Something Else because you have painted yourself into a corner using the Argument from Ignorance.

The argument that YOU use does not specify having experiences with.
It simply states that If you cannot prove something does not exist, it therefore must exist. You immediately include yourself as a believer in everything unprovable.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
You and I have went down the same road several tines. My God said have no other gods before him. Why would I say no other gods exist?
Then answer Yes or No.
Do other Gods exist?
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Now using your process and evidence where you took it one God further, prove Gid does not exist with 100% certainty. And we all know that a lack of someone else’s evidence is not sufficient.
Your Honor, my client was run over by the defendant 3 months ago and here is my proof:
1. The defendant does not own a car.
2. The defendant is a quad paraplegic and has been bed ridden since birth.
3. The defendant has been dead for 30 years.
Yes Spotlite, lack of evidence IS NOT sufficient.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
You waste more time avoiding Something Else because you have painted yourself into a corner using the Argument from Ignorance.

The argument that YOU use does not specify having experiences with.
It simply states that If you cannot prove something does not exist, it therefore must exist. You immediately include yourself as a believer in everything unprovable.
No painting here pal. I’ve had this experience a lot longer than you’ve denied it.

You’re completely mistaken about me. Just because you can’t disprove it is not an automatic proof for me. I believe in this because it works, not because you can’t knock it down or explain it away. That’s the difference.
 

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
Your Honor, my client was run over by the defendant 3 months ago and here is my proof:
1. The defendant does not own a car.
2. The defendant is a quad paraplegic and has been bed ridden since birth.
3. The defendant has been dead for 30 years.
Yes Spotlite, lack of evidence IS NOT sufficient.
Lol ok ?
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
No painting here pal. I’ve had this experience a lot longer than you’ve denied it.

You’re completely mistaken about me. Just because it can’t disprove it is not an automatic proof for me. I believe in this because it works, not because you can’t knock it down or explain it away. That’s the difference.

I don't deny your experience, I deny your source. It could, according to the Argument from Ignorance, have been from one of the other 9,999 gods just messing with you..lets not count the debbil and another 9,999 "bad" gods.

Who needs proof when everything is true???
 
Top