🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jRpd.194070$df2.83196@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:s3Rpd.208953$9b.127735@edtnps84...
>> In article <XnQpd.194039$df2.157648@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>> >news:xdQpd.7205$cE3.2786@clgrps12...
>> >> In article <EXPpd.193960$df2.21991@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Audodidact is the angliciszed spelling of the Greek Autodidak; to
>be
>> >> >> >self-taught.  No, I don't need a dictionary, and when I do, I
>readily
>> >use
>> >> >> >one.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You quoted me and I was speaking english, therefore it's a misquote,
>on
>> >> >par
>> >> >> with most of your lying.
>> >> >>
>> >> >So?  You knew the meaning, so it is semantics.
>> >>
>> >> It's semantics when you issue your own blather, when you misquote me
>it's
>> >a
>> >> lie.
>> >>
>> >Nope.  I have not cut an ounce of text for that very reason.  Your quotes
>> >are all through the thread.  In fact the only text cut, except for once
>> >above because the relevance of the argument changed so I did cut, was by
>> >you.  That usually means that things are being taken out of context;
>another
>> >fallacy my freind.
>> >
>>
>> Well it's not a fallacy, because you DID make a mistake.  Now you have
>> clarified so that's fine.
>>
>> (Growing up can be fun!)
>>
>Say again, over?  What are you babbling about?
>
>> >> Then I guess your challenge wasn't valid after all.
>> >>
>> >Oh the challenge is valid enough.  I just have no intention of being the
>one
>> >to take the risk.  Assuming you are as clever as you think, the risk
>should
>> >be well worth your taking.
>>
>> I already explained that the risk outweighs the benefit.  You haven't
>refuted
>> that claim.
>>
>Not if you are as clever as you claim.  I suspect you know you can't meet
>the challenge yourself so you would need someone else to take the risk.  You
>have lead us all to believe that there is no risk at all.

No, I'm telling you there is a very large risk, in fact, I contend that the 
more I were to excell at philosophy the greater chances of me being denied 
tenureship.  But that's pure speculation, same as yours.  Nobody will know 
until we put me through the paces.  So is this a red herring?  I think so.


>> When you insult or belittle or discount someone's claims without refuting
>them
>> devoid of logical fallacy, you are engaging in ad hominem whether you want
>to
>> or not.  Clearly you don't want to engage in ad hominem because you
>recognize
>> that is an inferior position.  But you do not know how not to engage in ad
>> hominem when it comes to defending indefensible claims.  You don't know
>how to
>> abandon your own bullshit.  You're chained to bullshit you create to puff
>your
>> ego.
>>
>I don't need to refute them if they are not supported or if they are
>contradicted.

You do need to demonstrated how they are not supported or how they are 
'contradicted'.  Simply proclaiming them as 'not supported' or 'contradicted' 
as if by magic, doesn't accomplish anything, except perhaps in your own 
delusional world.

>> I've read the thread enough times to determine that I haven't missed
>anything.
>>  If you think I've missed something, tell me what.
>>
>You have missed a horrendous amount.  In many of the arguments, you have
>actually made the case for the existence of God.

Because you say so without demonstrating how?  Magic trumps me again.  OH 
dear.


>  However, that was not the
>premise of the argument in the first place.  The premise was, "Is the
>ascertion that there is no God based on faith?"  I reasoned it, and you did
>not; end of argument.

I reasoned that the claim that there is no god is based on faith, well 
reasoned faith.  You insist that reasoning only verifies faith in god, and 
that reason cannot verify faith in the absence of god.  That's because 
you're a biased twit who wants to believe in god because you're a baby.  A 
little baby screaming "WAAAAAAH!!!" at the universe.