I've been thinking...

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I've been thinking...

Interesting deduction - considering that it's based on nothing. Philosopher Yahweh is guilty of making an ASSumption. Knows Philosopher Yahweh what happens when you ASSUME?

Actually I stated a few of the cardinal rules of Logic (which was the "Concepts are fine. Of course a concept becomes a "false adage" when there is a logical contradiction behind it" statement).

Assumptions made with a logical and/or rational basis are a form of reasoning (my reasoning was made with the "In this case, the logical "whaa" (not to be confused with "flaw") is the lack of reasoning behind your particular concepts" statement).

Yahweh is incapable of making an error in judgement, he is devinely perfect (reasoning: MASSIVE EGO, Yeah!).

No. Look again...it says "people willing to understand and tolerate your beliefs, even while explaining how you're wrong", not "people who tolerate your beliefs, even while you explain how they are wrong". Notice how the difference is subtle, yet profound? Contemplate.

Here, let me make a list of the types of people here:

• [*]Crochety types who like to put down and ridicule,
  
  [*]Understanding people who will tolerate your beliefs but still encourage you to question them, and
  
  [*]People with a meager grip on reality.

Better?

Ok, I understand now, cool.

 

[Checkmite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've been thinking...

Assumptions made with a logical and/or rational basis are a form of reasoning (my reasoning was made with the "In this case, the logical "whaa" (not to be confused with "flaw") is the lack of reasoning behind your particular concepts" statement).

Aha, but...are you actually familiar with my concept, and did you ask whether there was a lack of reasoning behind it before announcing that there was? If not (and you didn't), then you created a straw argument...or something approaching it. You'll not weasel out of this one so fast, Oh Almighty...