You claim that God does not exist, part 2.

I try not to make things too complicated for some of the readers on this forum.

 

Good thing I'm not talking to various posters, and am only talking to the super genius Incorporeal, right?

It sure is! Especially since it contradicts what you just said: "I never said anything about throwing things in peoples faces. You need to quit exaggerating."

"Now allow me to throw at you the same kind of crap that is usually thrown at me"

So, now I expect you to try squirming semantically to avoid the fact that, even though you openly stated you were throwing crap arguments at people, it somehow wasn't "throwing things in peoples' faces".

No, both are not valid words considering you just pointed out that it doesn't make sense with the word "of" in it. You need to really stay on top of your game, here, Incorporeal. You're floundering.

An adult conversation doesn't mean "a conversation of topics only spoken by adults". I thought you were familiar with colloquialisms, Incorporeal?

I'm suggesting that your explanation is poor, unclear, and what I would expect from a five year old.

Of course it is clear English, it just is a poor explanation because it's fallacious in content. It's a faulty argument based on circular reasoning. You've already admitted that you're incapable of explaining yourself further, so again, go practice the skills required to explain yourself clearly and comprehensively.

See, like this "I'm rubber, you're glue" tactic. I would expect this from a five year old, not a sixty something year old man.

2+2=4. Do you not understand what these letters and symbols express?

1) No, he didn't say that.
2) What the hell do I care about what Einstein did or did not say? Can't you carry on a conversation without resorting to an appeal to Einstein?

So, you don't accept that 2+2=4?

It certainly does. And another childish tactic. But, hey, at least we can say you're consistent!

Says who?

 

where did I mention "faces" in the quotes that you extracted from postings I have made? Come on.. show us where I said I was throwing things in peoples faces. My use of the word "at" does not restricted the target area to the 'face'. You lose.

 

Oh wow, who would have expected a complete avoidance of the majority of my post and a concentration on one tiny portion of it from Incorporeal? Certainly not I.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/throw+in+face

Maybe you should try to understand what the idiom means.

Edit- And my prediction about semantic squirming has come true! I must be Jesus.

 

Who is talking about idioms. It was my understanding that we were talking about direct statements. Why are you desiring to change the goal posts? Perhaps another rationalization on your part?

 

Throwing something in somebody's face is an idiom. Do you think that you can literally "throw an argument"? How does one literally throw an abstraction?

Then your understanding was wrong. And no, I'm not going to compel you to accept that it is wrong. Why should I waste the time on a person who won't even address my posts in their entirety?

 

In the same manner that you are attempting to do now.

Then why are you continuing your argument?

 

I'm not throwing an argument, so, try harder.

 

Then what are you doing? Are you suggesting that your writings have no thrust or that they are not being delivered?

 

This all seems well put.
A belief in nothing is to lack a belief in something. Since there must be a first cause in order to account for anything and everything (there must be) it is stupid (unreasonable, unthinking) to attribute everything to nothing!

I don't see how much clearer it could be.

 

"Throwing something in somebody's face is an idiom. Do you think that you can literally "throw an argument"? How does one literally throw an abstraction?"

I am certainly figuratively "throwing" an argument. Just as you were figuratively throwing an argument into the faces of others.

 

Actually I was throwing them at your feet for you to give consideration of them. Now just because I delivered them at your feet, why do you persist in saying that I threw them in your face or the faces of other people?

 

Because, you admitted that you were throwing "crap" arguments in a spiteful manner because allegedly somebody used the same argument against you. Which is well covered by the idiom, "throw X in somebody's face" where X is an argument, an issue, an event, an experience, etc.

 

And my question to you was to show where I have thrown anything in the face of anyone. So far all you have been able to do is to say that the phrase 'throw something in the face" is an idiom. Well, to me that represents a rationalization (an excuse for your behavior) because you cannot show where I have thrown anything in someones face.

 

Do you admit to throwing "crap" arguments in a spiteful manner?

 

No! Unless you are also saying that others (yourself included) on the forum have committed the same act.

 

So, you'd admit to doing so, even though you say you didn't, if I admit that I have done so as well? Well, then it's pretty clear that you do believe that you've thrown arguments out in spite; you just don't want to admit that you have unless I admit that I or others have.

 

That is where this part of the discussion started. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So, are you admitting that you have thrown "crap" (that was the word used previously) in spite?

 

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. Romans 12:17

Darned scripture. Always getting in the way.

 

Maybe getting in your way, but not mine. Now here's the big question for you. What is "honorable" in the sight of all? Rather an ambiguous term don't you think? Especially considering that what one might consider 'honorable' might be something ignoble or even dishonorable to another.

BTW: the term 'evil' bears the same burden of being ambiguous with respect "to all".

 

That darned ambiguous scripture, huh?
Though it does seem that not returning evil with evil is the opposite of doing what the Romans do.
Maybe this scripture will help sort it out.

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the perversity of the treacherous destroys them. Proverbs 11:3

 

Perhaps then you should practice what you preach and quit telling lies.

 

What lie did I tell in that post?
Are you saying scripture is lies?

 

Did I say such a thing in that post? Did I say that scripture is a lies? Remember your track record... it is you who claims that the Bible and Christian teachings are lies.

 

Well, you said I had to quit lying.
Either I lied in that post, or I have already quit.
Either you think scripture is "a lies" [sic] or you lied when you said I should quit.