Preconditional Worldview

[Collecemall]

Might as well join the fun.....I'm sure others addressed this more adequately and it's possible I'm wrong anyway. I don't pretend to be the brightest bulb in the room.

My position is that you're capable of valid reasoning, but it's in spite of your worldview. You're imago dei, and you must borrow from Christian presuppositions in order to function in God's world.

Then deal with our reasoning instead of pretending it's wrong because you've just said we're capable of reasoning. Regardless of why you think we're capable of it WE ARE. The funny thing is you're in the same boat if you're using the Bible as your validation of the presupposition. You had to reason to decide that was the case. So you're stuck in the same boat you just seem to think you don't have to paddle it to get where you want to go.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well then Henry Morris is wrong.

The founder of modern Creationism, so perhaps it's time for you to inspect your biases.

But I would add that those who presupose naturalism are equally wrong.

You don't understand anything to do with it, so stop bleating nonsense.

For example those who Say that no evidence would convince them that The universe had a supernatural Origin are as wrong as Henry Morris,

Now you're going to explain how supernatural events can be indicated with natural evidence.

No one's going to hold their breath because LEROY lacks the competence to even understand the problems, let alone resolve them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The view that states you can only know something if you can prove it empirically (or logically) is called verificationism .

Lying LEROY - you do not get to make up the meaning of words.

This is not what verificationism is, so stop lying.

This view has Been falsified

You don't know what falsification is, you numpty, because it's not possible to 'falsify' a philosophical doctrine. Rather, it fell out of favour in the 1920's in Europe, and the 1950's in the US.

You seem to promote that view (correct me if I am wrong)

You are wrong, you've been corrected, Aron Ra's told you that you're wrong, but as always with LEROY it doesn't matter about minor trivialities like truth, honesty, integrity... because LEROY made up bullshit and will continue touting that bullshit as fact, regardless of having been shown wrong.

The issue is not that you created your definition The issue is that when I do that in this forum atheist don't accept it

Because your definition is i) bullshit ii) contrived and iii) you used your selectively quotemined definition to attack other people, so stop whining as if you're the victim of injustice.

 

[Sparhafoc]

in fact what you call rationalism (also called verificationism) has been falsified and largely abandoned by scholars, only fanatic atheist from youtube and forums hold on to that view.

The yellow is a misdirection, a manufactured claim that is just nonsensical.

Rationalism is an epistemological position that reason and logical is paramount in deductively deciphering the truth of a situation.

Verificationism is a criterion of semantic significance, of the judgment of meaning. Thus, if a statement is not empirically verified, then it has no cognitive meaning and cannot be understood as it carries no semantic significance.


The green is a complete misunderstanding on your part as to what falsification is and the remit of its scope. Philosophical doctrines like this aren't 'falsified' but rather they fall out of favour in light of new ideas.

Amusingly, one of the key reasons that verificationism fell out of favour was the advent of falsificationism. :roll:


The red is where LEROY uses his bullshit manufactured make-believe as a stick to attack people who dare to disbelieve in his antiquated guff.

When Aron Ra defined rationalism, he did so in order to elucidate his own position, to clarify for his interlocutor what he meant when using that word going forward. Aron Ra's definition coincides perfectly well with any definition of rationalism.

When LEROY 'defined' (read "made up") rationalism as verificationism, it wasn't used to clarify a position for an ensuing discussion, it was used to justify his ad hominem well poisoning about the supposed 'fanatic atheists' who, contrary to all good scholarship, still supposedly hold on to the naive view. LEROY's definition is also contradictory to what any other sources' definition of verificationism or rationalism would contain because LEROY's objective is nothing to do with accurately engaging in honest discussion, but rather to find a way to snipe at people he hates.

At its most simple, the reason why Aron Ra's definition was accepted is because it's right, and the reason why LEROY's definition was not accepted is because it's wrong.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Finally, naturalism isn't a presupposition, it's a mechanical condition required to engage in the scientific method.

In science we,

Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so

As such, there has to be something tangible to measure, there has to be a purchase on the world. Our aim is to understand and explain a phenomenon.

We can't just just shove on a supernatural explanation at the end because it doesn't meet any such criteria. Such a claim would not be measurable and would provide no utility in any application of that supposed knowledge, not least because the supernatural explanation actually offers no explanation at all as we wouldn't understand the causal relationships occurring.

Science and rationality does not say 'there is no supernatural' (what LEROY wants to pretend is the case) it says 'we can't detect it or utilize it, so let's work with what we can and see if the resulting explanations are fruitful'.

Of course, reality is under no obligation to satisfy our inquiries, so if there is a causal supernatural element to a phenomenon, then we shouldn't be able to explain it with natural quantities alone. Have we encountered any phenomenon that we can't explain with only natural processes? :roll:

No, quite the contrary, employing this method has had unarguable success, a veritable golden age of discovery has coincided with this methodology... and if people like LEROY want to dispute that, then they need to offer a methodology employing conjecture about the supernatural that offers at least as much utility and tangible benefits as the scientific method.

Where are all the inventions, discoveries and theoretical frameworks achieved by belief in the supernatural? There's no parity here because, for all intents and purposes, the only utility the supernatural seems to have in this universe is the comforting of existential angst felt by some members of our primate species. Beyond that, it offers no apparent utility in any element of the universe.... so why is that?

To put it another way, science works bitches... and numpties like you LEROY need to explain why that should be if there's a congenital flaw in the underpinning philosophy.

 

[joshua040103]

I gotta be honest. I'm a little confused by your response me in what's supposed to be our actual discussion. You've actually quoted yourself and then went on to offer refutations following the quotes.... of yourself...

No I didn't. But you're welcome to quote what you think I said. Because I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

With that said, I'd like to recap on the points that actually matter.

1. You admittedly employ your reasoning as the means by which you justify the validity of your reasoning. You assert that your reasoning can be checked and valididated by other people for example, but as I've pointed out earlier; you have no choice but to employ your reasoning to evaluate other people's validation of your reasoning. You are therefore still in the circle.

And as I said, since we both exist in reality, then since I can turn to objective verification, that gives me the edge over you: because you also use your reasoning to justify your reasoning, except that you imagine an arbitrary outside source that can't possibly exist, and doesn't offer the excuse that you want, and you simply reject all the obvious proof that you're wrong.

2. You take a strong position against the definition of faith which you think is the biblical definition. However, since the basis for the presumed validity of your reasoning is logically fallacious, your very employment of it in any and all circumstances is fideistic.

My definition of faith is accurate, and my reasoning is justified where yours is not.

The best definition of faith that I can offer you in accordance to the Christian worldview is trust in the God whom we are certain exists.

Wrong. Once again, I refer you to my book.

According to a consensus of every authoritative or definitive source available anywhere—including dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons of theologians, past and present—faith in the context of religion can be accurately defined as a stoic, unwavering conviction—a positive belief which is not dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence. Believers usually want to argue this point trying to conceal the fact. So to prove it here, I’ll cite several dictionaries just to establish consensus:

Faith:
“Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
—Dictionary.com

“1. Complete trust or confidence. 2. Strong belief in a religion. 3. A system of religious belief.”
—AskOxford

“Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.”
—Accurate and Reliable Dictionary

“A firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
—Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

“Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.”
—Encarta

“For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.G. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as nonreligious people, criticize implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence.”
—Wikipedia

Dictionaries give common usage regardless of whether it is appropriate or accurate. I wouldn’t trust a common dictionary for scientific terms, because then I can demonstrate where dictionaries are sometimes wrong. (None of them properly define the word “animal,” for example.) I wouldn’t limit myself to dictionaries for this purpose either, because everyone wants to contest me. Another reason is that there are two different contexts in the dictionary; one of them exists only in the dictionary and in common vernacular, but it does not relate to religion, and does not derive from any of the writings of religion. I’m only talking about faith in the religious context.

Defenders of the faith want to pretend that “faith” is a synonym of “trust,” as if the focus could be shown to be worthy of that trust. Or they deliberately use the wrong context, pretending that we must have “faith” that an airplane will land safely before we get on it. That is quite a bit different than the religious context. They won’t admit what faith really is until they try to project their own faults onto nonbelievers in their frequent attempts at false equivalence—at which point they’ll either say that I believe on faith in lieu of evidence just like they do (ignoring all the evidence I present) or they’ll say that they have evidence just like I do, though they can never show it.

If faith is defined as an unsupported conviction, then they have it and I don’t. If faith is defined as a secure confidence in the truth, value, or reliability of a given position, then I have it and they don’t, according to the behaviors I typically see when debating such people—like when they ignore all my questions and won’t acknowledge my answers either. But we are definitely talking about a religious context here, not my estimation of evident probabilities when boarding an airplane.

If I were arguing scientific terms, I would have to cite peer-reviewed studies. Since faith is a religious term, I’ll have to turn to religious authorities, beginning with the most familiar scriptures in Western society.

• John 20:29: “blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe.”
• Romans 1:20: “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood from the things that are made.”
• Romans 14:22: “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction”
• 2 Corinthians 4:18: “We look not at things seen, but at things not seen.”
• 2 Corinthians 5:7: “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”
• Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Here we have things hoped for but not seen, looking at things that are not seen, not seeing what is seen, and, in Romans 1:20, the most common combination of logical fallacies: the circular argument routing back to an assumed conclusion. Note that we are expected to see what is not there. Not only that, but we are blessed if we make ourselves see what cannot be seen. This is not a reasonable request, and these are not reasoned responses. As Dan Barker writes in Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist:

"Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient evidence. . . . Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits."

Faith is the very opposite of reason, and where faith is encouraged, reason is discouraged. We are expected to believe without reason; in fact, we are blessed if we readily believe the most outrageous illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory claims from even the most credulous and questionable people without any evidence at all, according to the sermons of theologians past and present. Consider the words of Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, in the following excerpts from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians:

"What makes matters worse is that one-half of ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. . . . To turn one’s eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law. . . . When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. . . . The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. . . . We have two propositions: To live unto the Law, is to die unto God. To die unto the Law, is to live unto God. These two propositions go against reason. . . . When we pay attention to reason, God seems to propose impossible matters in the Christian Creed. To reason it seems absurd that Christ should offer His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper; that Baptism should be the washing of regeneration; that the dead shall rise; that Christ the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, etc. Reason shouts that all this is preposterous. Are you surprised that reason thinks little of faith? Reason thinks it ludicrous that faith should be the foremost service any person can render unto God. . . . Let your faith supplant reason. Abraham mastered reason by faith in the Word of God. Not as though reason ever yields meekly. It put up a fight against the faith of Abraham. Reason protested that it was absurd to think that Sarah, who was ninety years old and barren by nature, should give birth to a son. But faith won the victory and routed reason, that ugly beast and enemy of God. Everyone who by faith slays reason, the world’s biggest monster, renders God a real service, a better service than the religions of all races and all the drudgery of meritorious monks can render. Do not consult that Quackdoctor, Reason. Believe in Christ."

As you can see, where faith is encouraged reason is discouraged. They’re opposites. This is not just my interpretation, but the common understanding of scholars and philosophers. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” Or, to put it another way, as Mark Twain did, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Faith requires that we literally make-believe, that we presume, presuppose, and pretend; that we ignore what we really do see, and imagine something is there when it apparently isn’t. It means that we lie to ourselves and fool ourselves. Worse than that, faith requires that we believe the unbelievable. This is reflected in the hymns of Michael Card, especially the appropriately titled “That’s What Faith Must Be”:

To hear with my heart, .
to see with my soul,
to be guided by a hand I cannot see,
that’s what faith must be.

So we follow God’s own Fool,
for only the foolish can tell.
Believe the unbelievable,
and come be a fool as well.

This isn’t just willful ignorance; this is dementia, a deliberately induced delusion. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a delusion is a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, to falsely claim something even when there is evidence otherwise. What makes these beliefs delusional is that they don’t change when the person is presented with conflicting information—the beliefs remain fixed even when the facts contradict them.

According to Romans 1:18-21, everyone KNOWS God exists. How do you define faith in someone who you already know?

Again that is only an empty assertion. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You're only pretending that you do. And again I must refer you to my book.

But the most offensive tactic in this category is the assertion that atheists secretly believe in God. Worse than that, according to presupps like Sye Ten Bruggencate, atheists don’t just believe God exists; we know he does. Why does he say that? Because of the following passage from the first chapter of the book of Romans:

"(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; (19) because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (21) because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: (25) for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

After this, the passage goes on to imply (in the modern interpretation) that all atheists are hateful, evil, twisted, perverted, arrogant, and full of gay pride. It also says we worship the creation rather than the creator. I take that to mean that we actually study the natural world with awe and wonder, and that we accept evidence while apologists deny it to believe something else on faith.

Remember also that everywhere except the Bible, a fool is defined as one who too readily accepts improbable claims of credulous sources on insufficient evidence and is thus easily duped by a lie. Of course the Bible gives the opposite definition. So whenever someone says to me, “the fool says in his heart there is no god,” I like to reply with Jeremiah 8:8: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”

Somehow apologists interpret the above citation of Romans 1 from verse 18 onward to mean that everyone really knows that God exists, whether we admit it or not. First off, even if we pretend that the Bible is the authority they imagine it to be, these comments still didn’t apply to everyone in the world; they were directed only to a particular subset of Jews and Gentiles who were quarreling over who knew God better. Secondly, the passage actually requires that the reader simply assume the conclusion that “creation” requires a creator, but that’s the fallacy of question begging. What if we call it “reality” instead? Otherwise the passage gives no explanation of how anyone (much less everyone) is supposed to “know” that God exists.

There are also many other verses which prove that this cannot be the correct interpretation, beginning with the 16th verse of this very chapter from Romans where it says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation “to everyone who believes,” which implies that there are also those who do not believe. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 says the same thing. 1 Thessalonians 4:5 says the Gentiles don’t know God. According to 1 Samuel 3:7, Samuel didn’t know God, and Exodus 5:2 says Pharaoh didn’t either. Jeremiah 9:3 has God himself complaining about people who don’t know him. 1 Corinthians 8:6–7 also states unambiguously that there are people who do not know that there is a creator god, much less who he is. So the Bible clearly admits in several places that there are people who do not believe in the god of Abraham, either because they believe in other gods instead or because they believe in no gods at all.

This is interesting. Not because Sye Ten Bruggencate is wrong again, but because he gets his knowledge from scripture; because he says he knows God, and that God knows everything. Sye says everyone believes in God, but the Word of God says otherwise. So who is right this time—Sye or God? It seems that Sye Ten Bruggencate could be wrong about virtually everything he thinks he knows for the very reason that he thinks he knows things. He’s certainly wrong about the things he boasts about knowing most proudly.

Read the gospels, and you'll hopefully come to an understanding of the differing usages of the word faith and which one applies where. You faith you place in your reasoning is blind.

Once again, I obviously don't place any faith in my reasoning. You're still using equivocation to substitute your lack of any valid arguement.

You see, I don't need to address all your objections. All I gotta do is show you where your reasoning falls apart, and because I've demonstrated this, you stand refuted. If the basis for your reasoning is logically fallacious, then all proceeding claims are questionable by default. If the root is bad, the fruit is bad.

Then you're just bad fruit, because you haven't addressed ANY of my objections. Nor have you demonstrated anything but your own inability to comprehend even your own arguments much less mine. You haven't answered any of my questions either. Basically you've failed every point every way.

My position is that you're capable of valid reasoning,

That's my position about you. But I'm able to demonstrate that where you have only ever always failed.

but it's in spite of your worldview. You're imago dei, and you must borrow from Christian presuppositions in order to function in God's world.

I do not borrow anything from Christian delusions; neither your imagined presuppostions nor any aspect of your worldview either, as none of that works in reality.

As Douglas Wilson said

"If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else."

Again you demonstrate that emotional bias that if your god doesn't exist then human life loses all value such that we "no more than just meat machines" a you put it. I correct this error in your perspective in our live discussion, yet you're still repeating it.

Think about this. Even if your fantasy friend were real, would we not still be biological organisms? Wouldn't we still be "meat machings" even if there was a god??

Think about it. On your evolutionary position, your thoughts are chemically determined happenstance. You're not arguing your position for any rational reason, as doing so presupposes freedom in your thinking; but rather you are merely thinking and acting in accordance to whatever the chemical responses in your brain have determined at any given point in time. So if you're position were true, you couldn't know it.

Wrong on all points. First of all, I do not presuppose freedom in my thinking. Free will does not exist, and cannot exist in the Christian worldview, though you haven't given that enough thought yet to realize that.

Secondly, that doesn't even effect that my thinking is still rational where yours is not. Remember that rational though is based on or in accordance to logic. That's what I'm doing, and even computers can do, yet you are not. I can also demonstrate where and why I'm right where you cannot.

Finally, you still need help distinguishing when to use your vs you're.

Genuine knowledge is contingent upon universal concepts which can't be verified by empirical methodology.

You are so full of shit! I already gave you an example to refute you. The fact that we are animals, apes, and even monkeys can be verified, confirmed, proven with empirical methodology. That's not true of anything you make-believe because you believe in lies.

The laws of logic, as stated previously, are universally true, immaterial, and immutable. They do require a mind to exist, but human minds are not universal. Humans minds also differ from one person to another, and if the laws of logic are only products of how we think, then we could never violate the a law of logic. If the laws of logic are descriptive, then the laws of logic are contingent and there'd be no basis to presume that they will be the same in all places at all times.

Once again, I repeat, the "laws of logic" are merely observations, things humans have determined to be true so far as we can tell, and are subject to correction by better philosophers--as has happened before.

Read this quote from CS Lewis.

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?;

Because we can verify these things experimentally and empirically.

I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It is like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset."

Your compilation of conceptual fallacies do not constitute any sort of argument.

Now to go over what REALLY matters, (and not the horseshit you just cited) I'm going to repeat the questions you ducked and dodged.

1. Since you accept that either Sye ten Bruggencate or Sir Isaac Newton logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is?

2. Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

3. Do you understand why asserting empty unsupported and indefensible speculation as though it were factual is tantamount to lying?

4. Do you understand that it is dishonest to cite facts that are not facts?

5. Do you understand why it is dishonest to claim "truths" that are either not evidently true or are evidently not true?

6. Do you understand why it is dishonest to say you know things you don't know? And that the only time you can claim to know something is when you can demonstrate your accuracy and SHOW that you know what you say you do? If you think something is true, but you can't show concusive evidence to indicate that, you can say you believe it, but you can't say you know it, because you don't, and that would be lying.

7. Do you understand why you're not supposed to lie?

8. Do you accept that the natural universe really exists and is not simply an illusion?

9. Do you understand why it is impossible for our senses to be feeding us false information, meaning information about a false reality?

I'll remind you of the refutations you deliberately and dishonestly ignored for all your other points when they become relevant.

I found this to be very interesting.

https://youtu.be/flrncNZlOOw

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[AronRa]

The view that states you can only know something if you can prove it empirically (or logically) is called verificationism .

Which is obviously not what we're talking about here. We're talking about beliefs, opinions, and actions, not knowledge. However, you cannot honestly and ethically claim to know something if you can't show that you know it, and if you can't confirm your accuracy to any degree at all by any means whatsoever then you can't even know IF you know it.

This view has Been falsified

No it hasn't.

Verificationism (also known as the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning or the Verification Principle) is the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false (i.e. verifiable or falsifiable). It has been hotly disputed amongst Verificationists whether this must be possible in practice or merely in principle.
-The Basics of Philosophy

So verificationism is not what you said it was, and it hasn't been falsified either. Instead philosophers have "hotly contested" which applications of it should be used.

You seem to promote that view

No I don't. I don't hold the view you described; I hold the view that I described, which is importantly different. I'm saying you shouldn't believe without good reason. You're trying to defend making knowledge claims without justification. Neither of these have anything to do with Verificationism.

(correct me if I am wrong)

Of course you're wrong. That's what amazes me about religious believers: how all of you can be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, 100% of the time for such a long time and still pretend that yours is the absolute truth.

The issue is not that you created your definition

Good, because as I already demonstrated, I didn't create my own definition. I looked up the definitions and paraphrased a summary of them for clarity.

The issue is that when I do that in this forum atheist don't accept it

Then do as I do and use objective verification by citing a consensus of outside sources to prove that you're using these terms correctly. Although seeing how you misrepresented verificationism, you might want to start by actually using your terms correctly.

 

[joshua040103]

No I didn't. But you're welcome to quote what you think I said. Because I have no idea what you think you're talking about.
And as I said, since we both exist in reality, then since I can turn to objective verification, that gives me the edge over you: because you also use your reasoning to justify your reasoning, except that you imagine an arbitrary outside source that can't possibly exist, and doesn't offer the excuse that you want, and you simply reject all the obvious proof that you're wrong.
My definition of faith is accurate, and my reasoning is justified where yours is not.
Wrong. Once again, I refer you to my book.

According to a consensus of every authoritative or definitive source available anywhere—including dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons of theologians, past and present—faith in the context of religion can be accurately defined as a stoic, unwavering conviction—a positive belief which is not dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence. Believers usually want to argue this point trying to conceal the fact. So to prove it here, I’ll cite several dictionaries just to establish consensus:

Faith:
“Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing, that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
—Dictionary.com

“1. Complete trust or confidence. 2. Strong belief in a religion. 3. A system of religious belief.”
—AskOxford

“Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.”
—Accurate and Reliable Dictionary

“A firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
—Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

“Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof.”
—Encarta

“For quite a lot of people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their identities. E.G. a person will identify him or herself as a Muslim or a skeptic. Many religious rationalists, as well as nonreligious people, criticize implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence.”
—Wikipedia

Dictionaries give common usage regardless of whether it is appropriate or accurate. I wouldn’t trust a common dictionary for scientific terms, because then I can demonstrate where dictionaries are sometimes wrong. (None of them properly define the word “animal,” for example.) I wouldn’t limit myself to dictionaries for this purpose either, because everyone wants to contest me. Another reason is that there are two different contexts in the dictionary; one of them exists only in the dictionary and in common vernacular, but it does not relate to religion, and does not derive from any of the writings of religion. I’m only talking about faith in the religious context.

Defenders of the faith want to pretend that “faith” is a synonym of “trust,” as if the focus could be shown to be worthy of that trust. Or they deliberately use the wrong context, pretending that we must have “faith” that an airplane will land safely before we get on it. That is quite a bit different than the religious context. They won’t admit what faith really is until they try to project their own faults onto nonbelievers in their frequent attempts at false equivalence—at which point they’ll either say that I believe on faith in lieu of evidence just like they do (ignoring all the evidence I present) or they’ll say that they have evidence just like I do, though they can never show it.

If faith is defined as an unsupported conviction, then they have it and I don’t. If faith is defined as a secure confidence in the truth, value, or reliability of a given position, then I have it and they don’t, according to the behaviors I typically see when debating such people—like when they ignore all my questions and won’t acknowledge my answers either. But we are definitely talking about a religious context here, not my estimation of evident probabilities when boarding an airplane.

If I were arguing scientific terms, I would have to cite peer-reviewed studies. Since faith is a religious term, I’ll have to turn to religious authorities, beginning with the most familiar scriptures in Western society.

• John 20:29: “blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe.”
• Romans 1:20: “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood from the things that are made.”
• Romans 14:22: “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction”
• 2 Corinthians 4:18: “We look not at things seen, but at things not seen.”
• 2 Corinthians 5:7: “for we walk by faith, not by sight.”
• Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Here we have things hoped for but not seen, looking at things that are not seen, not seeing what is seen, and, in Romans 1:20, the most common combination of logical fallacies: the circular argument routing back to an assumed conclusion. Note that we are expected to see what is not there. Not only that, but we are blessed if we make ourselves see what cannot be seen. This is not a reasonable request, and these are not reasoned responses. As Dan Barker writes in Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist:

"Faith is the acceptance of the truth of a statement in spite of insufficient evidence. . . . Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits."

Faith is the very opposite of reason, and where faith is encouraged, reason is discouraged. We are expected to believe without reason; in fact, we are blessed if we readily believe the most outrageous illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory claims from even the most credulous and questionable people without any evidence at all, according to the sermons of theologians past and present. Consider the words of Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, in the following excerpts from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians:

"What makes matters worse is that one-half of ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. . . . To turn one’s eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law. . . . When the conscience is disturbed, do not seek advice from reason or from the Law, but rest your conscience in the grace of God and in His Word, and proceed as if you had never heard of the Law. . . . The person who can rightly divide Law and Gospel has reason to thank God. He is a true theologian. I must confess that in times of temptation I do not always know how to do it. To divide Law and Gospel means to place the Gospel in heaven, and to keep the Law on earth; to call the righteousness of the Gospel heavenly, and the righteousness of the Law earthly; to put as much difference between the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law, as there is difference between day and night. If it is a question of faith or conscience, ignore the Law entirely. . . . We have two propositions: To live unto the Law, is to die unto God. To die unto the Law, is to live unto God. These two propositions go against reason. . . . When we pay attention to reason, God seems to propose impossible matters in the Christian Creed. To reason it seems absurd that Christ should offer His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper; that Baptism should be the washing of regeneration; that the dead shall rise; that Christ the Son of God was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, etc. Reason shouts that all this is preposterous. Are you surprised that reason thinks little of faith? Reason thinks it ludicrous that faith should be the foremost service any person can render unto God. . . . Let your faith supplant reason. Abraham mastered reason by faith in the Word of God. Not as though reason ever yields meekly. It put up a fight against the faith of Abraham. Reason protested that it was absurd to think that Sarah, who was ninety years old and barren by nature, should give birth to a son. But faith won the victory and routed reason, that ugly beast and enemy of God. Everyone who by faith slays reason, the world’s biggest monster, renders God a real service, a better service than the religions of all races and all the drudgery of meritorious monks can render. Do not consult that Quackdoctor, Reason. Believe in Christ."

As you can see, where faith is encouraged reason is discouraged. They’re opposites. This is not just my interpretation, but the common understanding of scholars and philosophers. Friedrich Nietzsche said, “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” Or, to put it another way, as Mark Twain did, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Faith requires that we literally make-believe, that we presume, presuppose, and pretend; that we ignore what we really do see, and imagine something is there when it apparently isn’t. It means that we lie to ourselves and fool ourselves. Worse than that, faith requires that we believe the unbelievable. This is reflected in the hymns of Michael Card, especially the appropriately titled “That’s What Faith Must Be”:

To hear with my heart, .
to see with my soul,
to be guided by a hand I cannot see,
that’s what faith must be.

So we follow God’s own Fool,
for only the foolish can tell.
Believe the unbelievable,
and come be a fool as well.

This isn’t just willful ignorance; this is dementia, a deliberately induced delusion. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a delusion is a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, to falsely claim something even when there is evidence otherwise. What makes these beliefs delusional is that they don’t change when the person is presented with conflicting information—the beliefs remain fixed even when the facts contradict them.
Again that is only an empty assertion. If you can't show it, you don't know it. You're only pretending that you do. And again I must refer you to my book.

But the most offensive tactic in this category is the assertion that atheists secretly believe in God. Worse than that, according to presupps like Sye Ten Bruggencate, atheists don’t just believe God exists; we know he does. Why does he say that? Because of the following passage from the first chapter of the book of Romans:

"(18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; (19) because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: (21) because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: (25) for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

After this, the passage goes on to imply (in the modern interpretation) that all atheists are hateful, evil, twisted, perverted, arrogant, and full of gay pride. It also says we worship the creation rather than the creator. I take that to mean that we actually study the natural world with awe and wonder, and that we accept evidence while apologists deny it to believe something else on faith.

Remember also that everywhere except the Bible, a fool is defined as one who too readily accepts improbable claims of credulous sources on insufficient evidence and is thus easily duped by a lie. Of course the Bible gives the opposite definition. So whenever someone says to me, “the fool says in his heart there is no god,” I like to reply with Jeremiah 8:8: “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.”

Somehow apologists interpret the above citation of Romans 1 from verse 18 onward to mean that everyone really knows that God exists, whether we admit it or not. First off, even if we pretend that the Bible is the authority they imagine it to be, these comments still didn’t apply to everyone in the world; they were directed only to a particular subset of Jews and Gentiles who were quarreling over who knew God better. Secondly, the passage actually requires that the reader simply assume the conclusion that “creation” requires a creator, but that’s the fallacy of question begging. What if we call it “reality” instead? Otherwise the passage gives no explanation of how anyone (much less everyone) is supposed to “know” that God exists.

There are also many other verses which prove that this cannot be the correct interpretation, beginning with the 16th verse of this very chapter from Romans where it says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation “to everyone who believes,” which implies that there are also those who do not believe. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 says the same thing. 1 Thessalonians 4:5 says the Gentiles don’t know God. According to 1 Samuel 3:7, Samuel didn’t know God, and Exodus 5:2 says Pharaoh didn’t either. Jeremiah 9:3 has God himself complaining about people who don’t know him. 1 Corinthians 8:6–7 also states unambiguously that there are people who do not know that there is a creator god, much less who he is. So the Bible clearly admits in several places that there are people who do not believe in the god of Abraham, either because they believe in other gods instead or because they believe in no gods at all.

This is interesting. Not because Sye Ten Bruggencate is wrong again, but because he gets his knowledge from scripture; because he says he knows God, and that God knows everything. Sye says everyone believes in God, but the Word of God says otherwise. So who is right this time—Sye or God? It seems that Sye Ten Bruggencate could be wrong about virtually everything he thinks he knows for the very reason that he thinks he knows things. He’s certainly wrong about the things he boasts about knowing most proudly.
Once again, I obviously don't place any faith in my reasoning. You're still using equivocation to substitute your lack of any valid arguement.
Then you're just bad fruit, because you haven't addressed ANY of my objections. Nor have you demonstrated anything but your own inability to comprehend even your own arguments much less mine. You haven't answered any of my questions either. Basically you've failed every point every way.
That's my position about you. But I'm able to demonstrate that where you have only ever always failed.
I do not borrow anything from Christian delusions; neither your imagined presuppostions nor any aspect of your worldview either, as none of that works in reality.
Again you demonstrate that emotional bias that if your god doesn't exist then human life loses all value such that we "no more than just meat machines" a you put it. I correct this error in your perspective in our live discussion, yet you're still repeating it.

Think about this. Even if your fantasy friend were real, would we not still be biological organisms? Wouldn't we still be "meat machings" even if there was a god??
Wrong on all points. First of all, I do not presuppose freedom in my thinking. Free will does not exist, and cannot exist in the Christian worldview, though you haven't given that enough thought yet to realize that.

Secondly, that doesn't even effect that my thinking is still rational where yours is not. Remember that rational though is based on or in accordance to logic. That's what I'm doing, and even computers can do, yet you are not. I can also demonstrate where and why I'm right where you cannot.

Finally, you still need help distinguishing when to use your vs you're.

You are so full of shit! I already gave you an example to refute you. The fact that we are animals, apes, and even monkeys can be verified, confirmed, proven with empirical methodology. That's not true of anything you make-believe because you believe in lies.
Once again, I repeat, the "laws of logic" are merely observations, things humans have determined to be true so far as we can tell, and are subject to correction by better philosophers--as has happened before.
Because we can verify these things experimentally and empirically.
Your compilation of conceptual fallacies do not constitute any sort of argument.

Now to go over what REALLY matters, (and not the horseshit you just cited) I'm going to repeat the questions you ducked and dodged.

1. Since you accept that either Sye ten Bruggencate or Sir Isaac Newton logically must be wrong, then how could we tell which one it is?

2. Do you also accept either the evident probability or obvious possibility that BOTH men could be wrong?

3. Do you understand why asserting empty unsupported and indefensible speculation as though it were factual is tantamount to lying?

4. Do you understand that it is dishonest to cite facts that are not facts?

5. Do you understand why it is dishonest to claim "truths" that are either not evidently true or are evidently not true?

6. Do you understand why it is dishonest to say you know things you don't know? And that the only time you can claim to know something is when you can demonstrate your accuracy and SHOW that you know what you say you do? If you think something is true, but you can't show concusive evidence to indicate that, you can say you believe it, but you can't say you know it, because you don't, and that would be lying.

7. Do you understand why you're not supposed to lie?

8. Do you accept that the natural universe really exists and is not simply an illusion?

9. Do you understand why it is impossible for our senses to be feeding us false information, meaning information about a false reality?

I'll remind you of the refutations you deliberately and dishonestly ignored for all your other points when they become relevant.

I found this to be very interesting.

https://youtu.be/flrncNZlOOw

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

Looks like your arguments have been utterly and completely refuted by yet another presuppositionalist. This is what happens when you can't interupt your opponent or have other likeminded individuals interfere.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Amazing! The creator of everything, and without which, we would not be able to use reason has beamed special knowledge into joshua040103's head, yet cannot also give him the knowledge to master the quote function.

 

[joshua040103]

Amazing! The creator of everything, and without which, we would not be able to use reason has beamed special knowledge into joshua040103's head, yet cannot also give him the knowledge to master the quote function.

I'm sorry, I wasn't quoting anyone. I am new to forums. Typically I engage atheists on Facebook. Interesting how you live up to being the stereotypical atheist in that you're never beyond personally insulting people who don't hold to the same beliefs you do. Your persistence of inserting yourself into discussions that are irrelevant to you or your input speaks volumes to your need for self validation. It's likely you can't hardly get through a 24 hour period without stroking your ego at least once. It's sad really. I come here with the desire to see people come to a saving knowledge of God and I get mocked. You come here with nothing to offer but ad hominems and no concern for anyone or anything other than your ego. Just remember, that on atheism none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. You're a mere byproduct of random chance over time and eventually, maybe even this very day, your heart will stop, and you will slowly rot away into nothing. On your worldview, this is as good as it gets. So why you bother at all with discussion over these topics speaks to the dialectical tensions which exist within the philosophical framework of your worldview. If you're rearranged pondscum, who cares about what anyone else believes? You certainly shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

There was never any reason for a private forum, especially not now that Joshua has apparently already run off whupped.

I gotta be honest. I'm a little confused by your response me in what's supposed to be our actual discussion. You've actually quoted yourself and then went on to offer refutations following the quotes.... of yourself...

No I didn't. But you're welcome to quote what you think I said. Because I have no idea what you think you're talking about.

This is becoming genuinely bizarre.

Please Joshua - spend the 2 minutes it takes to learn how to use the quote function - something ubiquitous to all discussion fora - because the thread of conversation is becoming utterly opaque.

Given that you obviously want to communicate your ideas, it seems counterproductive to keep posting messages that are, for all intents and purposes, impossible for a reader to understand as you quote the wrong text, then have text that appears to be your response written in another quote bracket.

 

[joshua040103]

There was never any reason for a private forum, especially not now that Joshua has apparently already run off whupped.

This is becoming genuinely bizarre.

Please Joshua - spend the 2 minutes it takes to learn how to use the quote function - something ubiquitous to all discussion fora - because the thread of conversation is becoming utterly opaque.

Given that you obviously want to communicate your ideas, it seems counterproductive to keep posting messages that are, for all intents and purposes, impossible for a reader to understand as you quote the wrong text, then have text that appears to be your response written in another quote bracket.

I think I'm done casting pearls before swine. If you would like to have a one on one discussion with me, and you're on Facebook, here's a link to my page.

https://www.facebook.com/BACDM/

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm sorry, I wasn't quoting anyone. I am new to forums. Typically I engage atheists on Facebook.

What a strange way of expressing yourself.

Do you think you're engaging atheists here?

Has anyone in this thread said: there are no gods? Are any of the arguments based on the contention of there being no gods?

Interesting how you live up to being the stereotypical atheist in that you're never beyond personally insulting people who don't hold to the same beliefs you do.

Firstly, no one has insulted you.

Secondly, this 'stereotypical atheist' is just a public rehearsal of your internal prejudice.

Thirdly, where has anyone expressed an insult based on not holding the same beliefs as you?

Accusations are extremely easy to make, but you'd best be able to support those accusations if you want them to wash.

Your persistence of inserting yourself into discussions that are irrelevant to you or your input speaks volumes to your need for self validation.

You have been informed half a dozen times that this is not your personal fiefdom, rather it is a public forum on which all members have the same right to post replied. Stop pretending you are in a position to police the workings of a forum you have just joined. This is not a private conversation, your posts are public, and the public is wholly entitled to respond to your posts.

Learn this now.

It's likely you can't hardly get through a 24 hour period without stroking your ego at least once.

How hypocritical. You accuse people of being insulting only to go on to insult other people based on your desire to lash out.

It's sad really.

It is.

I come here with the desire to see people come to a saving knowledge of God and I get mocked.

1) Your desire to expound your beliefs about your mythological beliefs is not a virtue.

2) You actually haven't been mocked at all for your beliefs, you've been mocked for repeatedly failing to use a simple quote function and thereby causing a vast amount of obfuscation. Of course, rather than acknowledge your error mea culpa, you seek to turn it around and pretend that it's others who are at fault.

No, just learn how to use the quote function - it's not rocket science.

You come here with nothing to offer but ad hominems and no concern for anyone or anything other than your ego.

More accusations you haven't supported. They are consequently dismissed as you trying to lash out at people you can't defeat with argumentation.

Just remember, that on atheism none of this matters in the grand scheme of things.

Atheism isn't a belief system.

You're a mere byproduct of random chance over time and eventually, maybe even this very day, your heart will stop, and you will slowly rot away into nothing.

Pleasant chap, aren't you?

Of course, the first clause in your contention has been shown wrong, and the rest is equally true of a religious believer regardless of the god they follow.

On your worldview, this is as good as it gets.

The preposition is 'in', and no that's not how good it gets because you don't get to dictate your vacuous prejudice as if it were fact. If you want to know what people believe, you ask them, you do not tell them.

So why you bother at all with discussion over these topics speaks to the dialectical tensions which exist within the philosophical framework of your worldview.

Well, there are a dozen ways to respond. The first, of course, is that your formulation of what your interlocutors supposedly believe is bollocks, just a lack of empathy on your part and a desire to try and bully and abuse people who don't share your beliefs.

The second is that, even if there is a god and it happens to be the exact one you believe in, then why do you even bother with these discussions because it's not going to have the slightest impact on anything at all.

See how quickly you fall into nihilism!

If you're rearranged pondscum, who cares about what anyone else believes? You certainly shouldn't.

If you're rearranged dirt, who cares about what anyone else believes? You certainly shouldn't!

See how easy it is to employ your supposed points back at yourself?

Of course, I would never write such tripe myself because no one actually believes they are rearranged pondscum or dirt, so the assumption is flawed and is consequently exposed as being a lot more about an apparently vicious motivation rather than being about honest discourse.

From my perspective, your entire post was an example of throwing your toys out of the pram. Are you unable to engage people in good faith? Do you usually have a block button on FB so you can abuse them then block them? Are you performing these tricks for your audience, showing yourself to be the tough guy?

Any which way, my response is that if there is an all-powerful god, he certainly doesn't need the help of vicious little small-minded asshats abusing strangers on the internet.

So perhaps you could grow up and engage us as equal human beings?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think I'm done casting pearls before swine. If you would like to have a one on one discussion with me, and you're on Facebook, here's a link to my page.

Ironically, you reply to a post asking you to work out the simple usage of the quote function with a post embodying how confusing it is when you fail to do so.

You're not casting pearls before swine, Joshua - get over yourself, you ain't Jesus.

What's actually occurred is that you've had your claims countered, and you don't seem capable of responding to those rebuttals, so you're just going to declare yourself superior.

I don't need a one on one discussion with you - I don't go looking for people to argue with, and I couldn't give a rat's behind what you believe - I think you have every right to believe in any sort of nonsense you want so long as it doesn't result in you harming other people. Plus, I don't use FB as I think social media is an unhealthy pursuit.

Instead, I've contested your claims here publicly, and you haven't managed to address those refutations.

You can elect to do so, or you can flounce. Either way will be no skin off my nose, but of course, I would have zero respect for the latter.

 

[Collecemall]

There is a guide somewhere. I don't have the time to find it right this second but someone might point him to it.

Joshua there is a bit of a joke around here regarding the quote function. There is an almost 1:1 correlation between creationist and the inability to use the quote function. It's almost uncanny.

Having said that I struggle with it myself if I haven't posted in a long time. But it only takes a min to learn it. It makes things much easier for everyone if you can use it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Quick note Joshua - if you wish to stop making the basic error about how "we" supposedly believe we're the products of random chance thereby not causing groans of despair in those who know better, then let me know and I will be happy to educate you about the nature of contingency and particularly of biological evolution which is not possible to define as 'random chance'.

 

[joshua040103]

I think I'm done casting pearls before swine. If you would like to have a one on one discussion with me, and you're on Facebook, here's a link to my page.

Ironically, you reply to a post asking you to work out the simple usage of the quote function with a post embodying how confusing it is when you fail to do so.

You're not casting pearls before swine, Joshua - get over yourself, you ain't Jesus.

What's actually occurred is that you've had your claims countered, and you don't seem capable of responding to those rebuttals, so you're just going to declare yourself superior.

I don't need a one on one discussion with you - I don't go looking for people to argue with, and I couldn't give a rat's behind what you believe - I think you have every right to believe in any sort of nonsense you want so long as it doesn't result in you harming other people. Plus, I don't use FB as I think social media is an unhealthy pursuit.

Instead, I've contested your claims here publicly, and you haven't managed to address those refutations.

You can elect to do so, or you can flounce. Either way will be no skin off my nose, but of course, I would have zero respect for the latter.

I'm not here to have ANY discussion with YOU. Get over YOURSELF. If you've countered any of my arguments, I've not looked at them, for the simple fact that I came here to have this discussion with Aron, not you, not anyone else.

Sent from my SM-G930R6 using Tapatalk

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm not here to have ANY discussion with YOU. Get over YOURSELF.

Ironic and hypocritical.

You are here on a PUBLIC FORUM, Joshua.

Do you understand this elementary concept?

You have no more right or reason to dictate who can reply than if you were standing on a soapbox on the corner of a park bellowing hellfire and fury at people.

You do not own this forum, you only just arrived, and it's you who needs to come to terms with the fact that you do not control anyone here.

Get over yourself, or be disappointed - either way is fine.

If you've countered any of my arguments, I've not looked at them,....

How the closed-mind protects itself from inconvenient facts.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon

... for the simple fact that I came here to have this discussion with Aron, not you, not anyone else.

Tough titties. No one is obliged to pander to your pathetic whining. Stop pretending you get to control the discussion. By all means, use it as a transparent excuse to run away from all the destruction of your feeble ideas.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Or more accurately, you'll get back to me by pretending that I am not allowed to engage in a conversation with you.

 

[Collecemall]

EDIT: Tried to post the info but it recognized the format and acted on the tags....

It can be found at the following: https://www.phpbb.com/community/help/bbcode