#47435 - 07/08/06 09:23 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
My statement:
"Things fly off the earth on a routine basis. Does it not scare you that you might also fly away at some point? How can you be sure that you won't?"
Your statement:
"I cannot be sure that I will not fly off the earth, but that possibility isn't even worth considering, when placed beside the endless and more likely dangers of this life "
"An atheist would have no fear of flying out into space (as long as nothing went wrong) because of the laws of physics and trust in science, with or without any particular knowledge about gravity."
So you have no fear, but at the same time you can't be sure. You "trust/believe" the laws of physics even tho they can't explain how it works(collective hunch).
Whether it's more or less likely isn't relevant to the question or the discussion of your hypocrisy here.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47436 - 07/08/06 09:27 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement
"True we all post to whomever posts in a particular thread, however, we don't assume to demand that we answer for other peoples post. In other words if you have a problem with lighteningcreationscience guy... talk to him not me."
your statement:
"You said I was confused, because I replied to you about a thread you had directed to somebody else, You now admit that many if not all here do reply to threads directed to others.. I did not demand that you answer anyone else's post, I demanded that you answer a question, that was asked by somebody else. I did talk to lighteningcreationscience without any problem. I then talked to you about your replies to statements of others and your replies to statements from me. Now give me an example of my confusion?:"
I said you were confused because you demand an answer to an issue I hadn't addressed, didn't intend to address and still have no desire to address... and yet you continue to insist that I do such a thing. It was lighteningsciencecreation guy who brought the words of God into the thread, if you wish to discuss that with them that's fine... I made no mention of them in my post.... no matter how much you wish to twist and contort my original post.
YIPPEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! page 4
You can almost smell them new brake drums can't ya????
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47437 - 07/08/06 09:30 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"I'm sure religion does not necessarily have to include any supernatural beliefs."
your statement:
"The meaning of Religion is generally accepted as supernatural beliefs, and without any shadow of a doubt, you were using it in reference to supernatural beliefs. Stop the filthy nonsense"
And the generally accepted meaning of God is the Christain God. That doesn't mean it's true tho. What is generally accepted means little to me personally. I suppose if you want to live your life by someone elses standards.... try some free thinking for a change... don't follow the herd.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47438 - 07/08/06 09:33 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"Again, while we are all free to post whatever on the threads, the idea that I'm supposed to defend or be accountable for someone elses thought is silly"
your statement:
"That's right you are not supposed to do anything. Where demented one, did I attempt to hold you responsible for someone else's thoughts?"
Earlier in this thread when you attempted to twist my post to address lighteningcreationscience guys words. I have no intention of trying to defend what they said, nor am I real interested in discussing what they posted. I could be persuaded tho if MrSoul were to up the ante to maybe $5/pg for anything over 5 pages. Let me know.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47439 - 07/08/06 09:35 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"As shown you are attempting to force me into defending someone elses thoughts/beliefs. Ain't gonna happen, shame shame shame."
your statement:
"Shown where, where you shown that you lying.dog? Who's thoughts am I forcing you to defend,, and how am I attempting to do that? "
You are attempting to force me to discuss/defend lighteningsciencecreation guys posting of Biblical verses. Your repeated attempts to get me to answer for what they posted is proof of that. This continuing line of discussion is further proof. So quit it out already freddie.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47440 - 07/08/06 09:37 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"Apology accepted."
your statement:
"No apology was presented"
Then you aren't sorry for being confused? Or you aren't sorry you got caught at being confused?
If you wanna get snotty about it then I retract my acceptance of your apology and accept your nonapology as proof. Nana Nana boo boo
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47441 - 07/08/06 09:40 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"Either you deliberately lied about me using italics or you were confused as to who posted italics. I assumed the best of you and figured you were just confused. Should I have assumed you would deliberately lie? "
your statement:
"I do not lie, and making an error is not a sign of confusion.. Errors are to be expected, because of our limitations. And errors become even more likely, when as in my case I am dealing with many posters on many threads"
If you do lie then saying you don't lie would in itself be a lie, no? So prove you don't lie.
Please don't rush on my account, take yer time, use as many words as necessary and post as often as you feel you need to convey the complete idea. Errors are often the result of confusion.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47442 - 07/08/06 09:46 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"I never said it was the subject and at one time it was the truth."
your statement:
"You don't have to (say) it was the subject, to pretend it was. When you made the statement,
"Yes, all Christians use proper punctuation and spelling. Thank you for noticing"
you purposefully made it appear, but I had mentioned something about punctuation and spelling, knowing full well that I did not. The Christian deviousness continuous. Whether or not there was a time, when all Christians used proper punctuation and spelling is unknown. I am sure the Christian scribes made their share of errors as did non- Christian scribes"
What you believe were my intentions may or may not have been, you'd have to ask rather than assume unless of course yer psychic.
When Jesus walked the earth He utilized completely perfect punctuation and spelling, well Him and that small group of His but they really didn't do much writing then.
Punctuation and spelling seemed to cover the type style of italics for me personally, it's all that grammar thing which I kinda detest.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47443 - 07/08/06 09:51 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"And you've only always pointed out the bad that religion has done, while you are constantly bloating(?) about the wonderful good that "science" has suposedly done."
your statement:
"Don't use me as your excuse. You do not mention only the " good" of religion and the bad of science, because I don't mention the " good" of religion. You do it for: devious religious purposes. My constant presentation of the good science has done, is the necessary result of the constant demeaning of science by religion. I can see no " good", that religion has done. When apparent goodness is done for the specific purpose of promoting evil, it is not good "
And you know I "do it for devious religious purposes" how? ESP?? Psychic???
If you can see no good that religion has done then you simply must have you haid in the ground. When I took food/clothing to those in need was that evil? When I paid for people to have heat in their homes that was evil? Oh what a horrible person I am! I should be horse whipped.
We are constantly bombarded with the goofball antics of a very few in religion or even better the actions of those who live several hundred years ago as if we are to blame for their doings. I am accountable only for my actions. Simply because I'm an American doesn't mean I'm responsible for those who act crazy here.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47444 - 07/08/06 09:52 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"Things simply are... whether they are good or bad is a subjective judgement."
your statement:
"As I have said many times, good and bad are simply self serving titles humanity has assigned to promote what they like, and try to prevent what they don't like "
So you agree with my religious concept!
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47445 - 07/08/06 09:59 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Davyd
Member
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 4112
Loc: People's Republic of Amerika
|
I
my statement:
"What you consider to be obvious is simply a subjective judgement based on your personal beliefs founded on what you choose to consider as evidence of truth"
your statement:
"Nonsense, this reality and the titles in uses of the things within it, are the same for you and everyone else on this earth.. Reality was not created by me or for me, thusly it is not a separate thing for or by me. My ( judgment) of it, had no part in its existence. Again I do not deal with (beliefs). I do not choose ( evidence), it cannot be a personal thing. You are completely dependent on the same reality that has always existed. And you are completely dependent today, on (facts) discovered centuries ago by others, proving that facts are not subject to individual acceptance or rejecting"
We weren't talking about this reality and titles... we were discussing my post to Starlight. You made the statement that my reply was unrelated and a false analogy. Your statement is subjective and a judgement based upon your beliefs.
Objectively you can say that I made a statement.
Subjectively you can make a judgement of that statement but it holds no weight or proof or fact. It's simply a crap statement.
_________________________
Blu E-CigsCleaner, Cheaper, Safer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47448 - 07/09/06 10:39 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
Paulwa_dup1
Member
Registered: 02/12/05
Posts: 4951
Loc: Washington
|
You guys posts are like a beer belly hanging way over the belt buckle...not pretty and not very healthy or functional... 
Paul
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#47449 - 07/10/06 12:58 PM
Re: The Fish That Shoots Down Evolution
|
I
Member
Registered: 02/28/00
Posts: 2513
|
Davyd
your statement:
"Yes, I believe I only have an opinion not a corner on any truth. My opinion is called Christian I suppose because that's what other people refer to it as. IF Christianity has a corner on truth it's not readily apparent at this time. Perhaps in the life after this one? "
When other people refer to Christianity, they are not referring to your opinion. I think they as you, are simply blindly accepting the lie of your religion.. It is patently ridiculous of you to try and pretend that an institution of lies, that was created before you even existed is simply a matter of your opinion. If Christianity had a corner on the truth, it would be readily apparent. The truth does not play hide and seek. Your religion has no apparent truth for the same reason that other religions do not have any apparent truth, because they are lies.
So your God failed to assure you of any truth, you will only know for sure (you believe) when you are dead. The con game continues right through your death. But you can't be sure of that neither can you. You probably will have to be born again to know, whoops no, you will have to die again to know,. nope born again, die again, born again, die again etc. etc. etc. etc. By the time you get through, it won't matter anymore. And just think that all the while you really knew deep in your being, that it was all bullshit made up by men
Your statement:
"Out of all the religions combined, how many creators, hierarchy and proselytizers do you think there are? A percentage would do here."
What difference does that make?
Your statement:
" And that percentage of the religious even tho they believe this "garbage" aren't evil, wicked or devious?"
The creators, the hierarchy are definitely evil and devious there may be some proselytizers, who believe what they are promoting. But That does not change the situation
Your statement:
"How do you tell the difference between a non-evil religious person and an evil religious person? "
I have no need to
Your statement:
"Naw, I ain't buying it. 2+2=5 is always perverted. Whether it's premeditated or not is not relevant."
It is always wrong not always perverted
Your statement:
"Think about it this way, according to you if a feller has sex with a chicken and doesn't know it's perverted then according to you it's perfectly fine."
Where did I say that would be perfectly fine? What I said was that the desire was not preconceived therefore not false
Your statement:
" It's only when you know having sex with a chicken is perverted that it's a perversion? "
You are really trying to pervert completely what I said ; aren't you, lying soul. What I said was, ( a true perversion is not false?) . I was not defining perversion. You are trying to twist the subject over to perversion. You continually try to crawl more and more away from the main subject
Your statement:
"That sounds amazingly similar to what the APA said when it changed the DSM criteria for pedophilia when it stated that it was a mental illness ONLY if you felt bad for doing it. It's always perverted, justifing and rationalizing it away is crazy talk."
It sounds that way because you purposefully tried to make it sound that way, by perverting what I said. Once again I said, ( a true perversion is not false?)
Your statement:
"Yeah, that's the reason the Piltdown Man was almost immediately revealed as a fake? lol How many decades did that one take again? Honest and Piltdown Man don't belong in the same sentence, I believe hoax would be more appropriate"
Are you blaming science for what A. few individual criminals did, those criminals prevented science from getting at the truth for awhile, that was not a deliberate lie of science as you are pretending. When science realized it was false, they immediately brought that information to the public. I'm still waiting for your religion to add a little more than that they were wrong to persecuted Galileo. And unlike science, it was the church that committed the abuse of Galileo. Again there is no similarity whatsoever of religion and science
Your statement:
"Both have had their share of goofs, science may move faster than religion but eventually they all are exposed."
Mistakes can be exposed, institutional lies are extremely difficult to expose. Scientists being human can be expected to make errors in their fields. Religion is supposed to consist of the word of a God, programmed and directed by those directed by that God, in the light of that God , they have no right to claim error; unless God make errors. The depth and horror of the actions excused as errors by religion, should not be soft peddled by calling them goofs
Your statement:
"Sure they have a comparison, I just did it! I see far more similarities between the two than differences. "
You have not given one similarity. I have given the only similarity they both consist of human beings
Your statement:
"Sure it does. Hypothesis, comparisons, theories, proofs, test/retest... are all contained within religious belief. Thousands may survive without a direct belief, but billions survive with a religious belief and athiests simply survive on their goodwill and generosity. "
None of that has to do with the truth of the basics of religion, it is just their bickering over the meaning of words of the composite lies of religion. What proof of anything has religion given?
Your statement:
"Thousands may survive without a direct belief, but billions survive with a religious belief and athiests simply survive on their goodwill and generosity.
Those billions could also survive without a belief, but criminal religion would not allow that. The numbers of atheist, were constantly eliminated by the evil religions. The number of victims who, those of your Church, is nothing more than an indication of the expanse of the criminal activity of religion
Your statement:
"and athiests simply survive on their goodwill and generosity."
What an arrogant, criminal , slimy, false statement that is. Your filthy church oppressed and murdered most of them during the height of its power. The atheist survived in spite of evil Christianity's attempts to wipe them ou t, not because of the goodwill and generosity of the criminal church. It is still doing its utmost to keep atheist down, that and the continuous damaging of the minds of children by Christianity, is what keeps the number of atheist down.. But the atheist will survive and grow, for truth alone survives in the and. Religion is nothing more than an organization of evil, lying men
Your statement:
(Religion does not deal with data, it deals with false statements")
"It deals with statements, whether they are false or not is a subjective judgement."
Lies are not data subjective or otherwise. Science doesn't deal with the lies, it deals with facts
Your statement:
"Who are you to decide what is true or false for others?"
That question should be directed to your religion, not me. I do not decide what is false or true, reality does. Religion destroys, corrupts, perverts, censors the truth.. Religion constantly attempts to deny humanity the truth
Your statement:
"A false set of statements is still data and can be contained within a set. "
Data is information, lies are not information
Your statement:
"That's unfortunate. I find them extremely interesting. It simply amazes me how someone can have an alphabet of A, B, C, D, W, X, Y, Z, 3, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z and still function to great degree! That's what makes me wonder about you. You seem smart and I'm sure you function at a normal level... and yet if you stumble across this one area of hatred you are completely bonkers. lol "
I see you have posted your alphabet, I know you want me to straighten it out for you, but it will do you good to try to figure it out yourself. It is not unfortunate that I find them boring. That's good you keep on wondering about me, that way you will learn something. Hatred is just one of the many emotions of life, rarely a problem
Your statement:
"Yes by golly I did refer to it as delusional or paranoid or possibly both. People who are delusional or paranoid or possibly both do have an effect on me... they make me smile. "
I have an effect on you also
Your statement:
"It's delusional simply because you are sure it means plenty to me, although you have absolutely no way of knowing what effect it may or may not have. Delusions of Grandeur It's paranoid simply because you seem to have given a lot of thought to my response."
I am sure what I say means plenty to you, because I know human nature, I know what interest people. And you want to counter me to protect your religion The proof that I am right about you having so much interest in what I say, is your continued response . Now there is nothing delusional or paranoid about that, is there
Your statement:
"If trust is "I think so, I hope so"... then what is the thought and hope based on? Certainly not facts cause then there would be no need of thought or hope."
Trying to change the subject again, sleazy one. The subject was the difference between trust and belief, not facts. The thought is about what it is I am thinking about, the hope is my desire
Your statement:
"Belief is based on not knowing... I believe that God is alive and well. That statement is a belief. I trust that God is alive and well is essentially the same statement. My trust is based not on facts but upon belief in something."
Belief is more than (based) on not knowing, it is complete not knowing . You are believing what is based on nothing. Belief is claiming a fact while hoping. Hoping is working off of facts and past experience. Believing is a devious perversion of hoping, it is claiming as a fact that which it is hoping for, at the same time that it is hoping
Your statement:
"Your hypocrisy lies in that while you want to split trust and belief... you essentially have both and deny one. Ever heard the story of the guy who jumped out of a plane while holding a piece of sod to his feet and repeating to himself that he couldn't possibly be falling cause his feet were firmly planted on dirt. Pot-Kettle"
Your hypocrisy is to say that I am splitting trust and belief, they are two separate things Your hypocrisy is pretending that they are not, two separate things. I do not have both, I do not deal with belief. Your paranoia deems that I have belief, by insisting that belief and trust are one and the same. They are not. That is just a worthless, meaningless situation that you describe. If the guy was so mentally disturbed that he could not understand that a little piece of sod is not the earth, what is the point. His problem like yours, is not dealing in facts.
Your statement:
"So you have no fear, but at the same time you can't be sure. You "trust/believe" the laws of physics even tho they can't explain how it works(collective hunch)."
I am not trusting anything moron, I said there are too many other more likely thing that can happen, to be concerned about flying of the earth
Your statement:
"I said you were confused because you demand an answer to an issue I hadn't addressed, didn't intend to address and still have no desire to address... and yet you continue to insist that I do such a thing. "
I demand that you answer a question that someone else asked you, because I did not want to to be able to avoid it. There is nothing confusing about that. You get into all this stupid bullshit, just so you can confuse the issue.. What did I insist that you do
Your statement:
"YIPPEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! page 4"
Don't pretend that the money you are (supposedly getting) for the number of posts you put forward , is why you are putting them forward. You are once again proving, how important what I say is to you.
Your statement:
"And the generally accepted meaning of God is the Christain God. That doesn't mean it's true tho. What is generally accepted means little to me personally. I suppose if you want to live your life by someone elses standards.... try some free thinking for a change... don't follow the herd."
What religion is not involved with a supernatural ? Free thinking is all I ever do, my mind is not chained to belief and religion. You should try some free thinking, and you should try to stop following the crowd
Your statement:
"Earlier in this thread when you attempted to twist my post to address lighteningcreationscience guys words. I have no intention of trying to defend what they said, nor am I real interested in discussing what they posted. I could be persuaded tho if MrSoul were to up the ante to maybe $5/pg for anything over 5 pages. Let me know"
Again I told you to answer a question that another poster asked you, that you ignored.. You should display my so called attempts to twist your posts to lighteningcreationscience. It would accomplish what you are so desperately trying to accomplish
Your statement:
"You are attempting to force me to discuss/defend lighteningsciencecreation guys posting of Biblical verses. Your repeated attempts to get me to answer for what they posted is proof of that. This continuing line of discussion is further proof. So quit it out already freddie."
I never attempted to get you to discuss our defend lighteningsciencecreation. You are all over the place, with your senseless babble and complete lies. None of your above babble is true. Why doesn't it bother you, that your God knows that you are lying? It would bother you, if you really believed in that God
Your statement:
"Then you aren't sorry for being confused? Or you aren't sorry you got caught at being confused?"
How can I be sorry for being confused, when I am not confused. Where did I get caught being confused?. Display an example of my confusion. You cannot lie my supposed confusion into existence, like you do your God
Your statement:
"If you wanna get snotty about it then I retract my acceptance of your apology and accept your nonapology as proof. Nana Nana boo boo "
Try to think clearly now, how can you " retract my acceptance of your apology and accept your nonapology as proof" when I did not apologize. The proof of which is your acceptance of my not apology. But then again I should keep reminding myself, of the low level mentality that I am dealing with.. What does my not apologizing prove?
Your statement:
"If you do lie then saying you don't lie would in itself be a lie, no? So prove you don't lie"
Yes that would be true genius. I don't have to prove anything. My statements are open, to be read by anyone interested.
Your statement:
"Please don't rush on my account, take yer time, use as many words as necessary and post as often as you feel you need to convey the complete idea. Errors are often the result of confusion."
Isn't it obvious to you, that I do exactly that? Yes often, but not in this case
Your statement:
"What you believe were my intentions may or may not have been, you'd have to ask rather than assume unless of course yer psychic"
It borders on the useless, to ask a devious liar about much of anything. But someone being a devious liar, is a great aid in figuring out much more about what he is
Your statement:
"When Jesus walked the earth He utilized completely perfect punctuation and spelling, well Him and that small group of His but they really didn't do much writing then."
How could you possibly know that? Yes therefore bringing up punctuation and spelling is moot
Your statement:
"Punctuation and spelling seemed to cover the type style of italics for me personally, it's all that grammar thing which I kinda detest."
Kindly keep information about yourself from me, I am not worthy of such information
Your statement:
"And you know I "do it for devious religious purposes" how? ESP?? Psychic???"
Because it is glaringly obvious
Your statement:
"If you can see no good that religion has done then you simply must have you haid in the ground. When I took food/clothing to those in need was that evil? When I paid for people to have heat in their homes that was evil? Oh what a horrible person I am! I should be horse whipped."
If you can read, why don't you understand what you read? I said as you well know, that when the apparent good is done for an underhanded reason, it ceases to be good concerning the givers, in spite of the fact that it benefits those it is given to. It's purpose is to create good PR for the church, and more importantly gives the church the opportunity to take advantage of the misfortune and insecurity of the victims; to impose its religious beliefs upon them while they are in their most susceptible position. It is extremely evil . Let them be holy and good, by giving the help and keep their beliefs to themselves. But they will not be that good will they
Your statement:
"We are constantly bombarded with the goofball antics of a very few in religion or even better the actions of those who live several hundred years ago as if we are to blame for their doings. I am accountable only for my actions. Simply because I'm an American doesn't mean I'm responsible for those who act crazy here."
You are Still repeating the same post, I have already answered over and over again. You have not condemned you religion for its actions in the past and present, (which you so sleazely soft pedal as goofball antics) instead you make excuses for those actions, you refuse to look upon it, as the evil institution it is. Instead you applaud it, you defend it verbally, and you support it financially. Your acceptance and support of that evil institution, makes you a willing participant in that evil
Your statement:
"So you agree with my religious concept! "
This my statement: (As I have said many times, good and bad are simply self serving titles humanity has assigned to promote what they like, and try to prevent what they don't like)
is not an agreement with this your statement, ""Things simply are... whether they are good or bad is a subjective judgement.".
I made my statement before you made yours, you are simply trying to make a concocted agreement with my statements. The difference being that your statement is defining good or evil as a matter of individual subjectivity. My statement says there is no such thing as good or evil . And your statement is in no way , a religious concept
Your statement
"We weren't talking about this reality and titles... we were discussing my post to Starlight. You made the statement that my reply was unrelated and a false analogy. Your statement is subjective and a judgement based upon your beliefs"
This is what we were talking about devious one.""What you consider to be obvious is simply a subjective judgement based on your personal beliefs founded on what you choose to consider as evidence of truth"
to which I answered,
("Nonsense, this reality and the titles in uses of the things within it, are the same for you and everyone else on this earth.. Reality was not created by me or for me, thusly it is not a separate thing for or by me. My ( judgment) of it, had no part in its existence. Again I do not deal with (beliefs). I do not choose ( evidence), it cannot be a personal thing. You are completely dependent on the same reality that has always existed. And you are completely dependent today, on (facts) discovered centuries ago by others, proving that facts are not subject to individual acceptance or rejecting")
That is what you are supposedly posting in reference to, but you are playing your rotted devious games
Your statement:
"Objectively you can say that I made a statement.
" Subjectively you can make a judgement of that statement but it holds no weight or proof or fact. It's simply a crap statement."
I don't need you to tell me the meaning of subjectivity or objectivity
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
