- Speaking of mistakes, in post #10935 I posted the following statement: Thus, until the claim God exists cannot be justified, the rational position is thatMessage 1 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007View SourceSpeaking of mistakes, in post #10935 I posted the following statement:
"Thus, until the claim 'God exists' cannot be justified, the rational
position is that there is no reason to believe in the god."
This is a good example of how editing and missing a full edit can screw
things up. In the process of writing that sentence, I had started of by
typing "Thus, if the claim 'God exists' cannot be justified...." then
moved my cursor back to the "if" because it was better to state it
as "until," but then I neglected to edit the other part of the phrase
accordingly. So that sentence should be:
"Thus, until the claim 'God exists' is justified, the rational position
is that there is no reason to believe in the god."
That statement on its own, by the way, is a concise statement of the
- Todd Greene
- ... It looks like that cannot should be a can ! Alas, I had written the above, checked your latest incoming post, and noticed you have already noted andMessage 2 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007View SourceTodd, you wrote, in part:
> Thus, until the claimIt looks like that "cannot" should be a "can"!
> "God exists" cannot be
> justified, the rational
> position is that there is
> no reason to believe in
> the god.
Alas, I had written the above, checked your latest incoming post, and noticed you have already noted and corrected the error! :o)
You also noted that:
> Daniel (Denham) will keepSpeaking of which, the "cows" (i.e., according to Donald Canny, the "girlie-men" who are most vocal on the ContendingFTF list) are all due home tomorrow.
> right on misrepresenting
> what atheism even means,
> long after the cows have
> come home.
What else will they be doing once all the cows come home?
Todd, you also wrote:
> Notice that Daniel did notI noticed!
> even attempt to back up
> his assertion.
Todd, you also noticed:
> What we're observing isDidn't I note that Bales warned us of that. Daniel is in a place where reason doesn't dwell.
> Daniel giving up on the
> rationality of his belief...
Todd, you again properly notice, for the record:
> In regard to seekingSincerely,
> to "constantly...change the
> subject," the fact of the
> matter is that it is the young
> earth creationists who
> constantly sought to change
> the subject because they're so
> embarrassed about the fact
> that their religious dogma of
> young earth creationism is
> scientifically false.
> So here we see Daniel lying
> about this too, as he has been
> constantly lying about it all
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- ... Todd, thank you for pointing that out. As I just posted in the other thread (in part): ***** Here is the message that shows Daniel Denham would have beenMessage 3 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007View SourceTodd, you quoted Daniel Denham:
> > Then there's RickAnd replied:
> > who has trumpeted loudly the values and virtues of
> > "cat morality"
> This is just Daniel burying his head in the sand again,Quoting Denham again:
> because he is incapable of dealing with the reality
> that animals display many of the behavioral aspects of
> what we call morality. Daniel merely denigrates the
> point rather than even trying to deal with the facts.
> This is one of his standard operating procedures.
> > and who has intimated that some people areYou replied:
> > more human than others.
> This is a point from Rick's discussion, that DanielTodd, thank you for pointing that out. As I just
> failed to address. Again, rather than even trying to
> deal with the facts of the discussion, Daniel just
> runs away from the points being made and then later
> just makes stupid and vapid remarks about points that
> he ran away from even dealing with in a rational
posted in the other thread (in part):
Here is the message that shows Daniel Denham would have
been better served to just keep his mouth shut about me
and my "cat morality" and my "intimations" of what makes
a human a "human":
> > Just a helpfulYou replied:
> > suggestion based on Todd's own implicit admissions.
> There's that "implicit admissions" weasel wordsJust a "helpful suggestion", Todd: you might want to
> tactic again. Of course, there was nothing "implicit"
> or an "admission." I stated my points explicitly,
> and far from being any "admission" my points
> substantiate my position.
> - Todd Greene
copy your last paragraph here to a handy place so
you can paste it repeatedly into any replies you may
make to Daniel Denham. Those "implicit admissions"
of yours will be where Denham gets himself into trouble --
you can say the sky is above the sea and Denham will
take that as an "implicit admission" from you that you
believe the sea is above the sky.
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
- Rick, Todd: I think you might find some good evidence as to just how hard I ve hit Daniel Denham by simply doing some checking on the use of the term, in itsMessage 4 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007View SourceRick, Todd:
I think you might find some good evidence as to just how hard I've hit Daniel Denham by simply doing some checking on the use of the term, in its various forms, "implicit".
I have used the term so successfully to note various aspects of where David P. Brown and the boys are at that it really got to Daniel Denham.
So, Denham has recently picked it up and started using it, ineffectively, in his postings.
What a hoot!
Denham can't be like Wallace!
Denham can't be like Warren!
Denham can't be like Bales!
Denham wants to try to be like Baty!
I win again!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]