I never insisted as much. I merely pointed up the logical error in your statement that there was evidence that we cannot perceive things that you have already assumed to exist outside our perception.

Saying there's no proof something exists is not the same as saying proof exists that it doesn't exist.

Once again, you're engaging in denialism and straw-man arguments -- putting words into my mouth so you can fake winning an argument.

242sumner wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: You humans...

Rick what are you???

Rick Reuben wrote:I guess Gramsci and big_dave would have us believe that these psychotic freaks are exactly the same as the rest of us. I'd prefer not to believe that. I think most people don't act like these crazed mammon-worshipping lunatics. Why is it accepted as fact that we are all products of the same gene pool?

I'll keep looking. If I have any breaking news on demonic bloodlines, I'll break it here.

So I'll take it that Bob, by calling me a lair, actually didn't mean a lair in the traditional sense of the word?

Change your signature, Rick.

You're being dishonest. You know I said that before I had conducted an actual inquiry into the validity of 9/11 Truth theories. That quote represents an initial hunch on my part.

By portraying me as having said that recently, you're being a dick. And you know you're being a dick.

Change it.

*sigh* i can't believe i'm getting into this again...

This entire argument is stupid and continues to send people around in circles. Like i said earlier in the thread, debating whether or not God exists, or whether there was a "designer," is a fun mental exercise, but ultimately, it's not worth getting this blown up over. Maybe there's a God, maybe there's not. I like to think there is, other people think that's crazy talk. Who cares? Take any position you want, the world turns either way.

Rick's entire point in starting this thread was to basically say that people who look down on religious folk while ignoring stuff he feels* actually exists (i.e. the Elite Liberal Sellout Globalist Conspiracy) are pompous hypocrites. He said pages and pages ago that it's just a big ol' "atheism vs. agnosticism" semantic argument (well, he says it's not semantics, but when you're arguing about definitions, that's sort of what semantics is). Fine. Whatever. Message stated.

People who think there's no God shouldn't look down on people who do. I can get behind that. People who think there IS a god shouldn't look down on those who don't. I can also get behind that. Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God. If it did, faith would be meaningless. But whether or not individuals have faith or not should have no bearing on whether or not they can get along, as long as no one's being a cock and belittling the other side. We can't agree on that at least?

(cue tons of "the other side started it" posts)

*$10 says he calls me names for saying "feels" instead of "knows" or some similar egregious misuse of language in his view

Why did he edit the made-up word "cybergenic" from that post?

I wonder if Rick is a shared account.

Any assertion by made by a human that he speaks "pure truth" should tip you off that he's lying through his goddamn teeth.

If Bob really spoke the truth, he would speak with precision and clarity. He wouldn't balk at providing conclusive evidence of his assertions and allegations. He also wouldn't constantly quote-mine others' posts on the forums and use their own words out of context against them, boldly accuse them of espousing beliefs they do not hold, or misrepresenting their words as whatever fake argument he wishes to counterpoint.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Gramsci wrote:So I'll take it that Bob, by calling me a lair, actually didn't mean a lair in the traditional sense of the word?

You are a lair. And also a liar.

So Bob doesn't believe in hybrid human-demon/angels/sons of Zeus as a possibility. The "if" and "tiny percentage" comments actually meant "no" and "zero percentage".

I'm glad we cleared that up. I mean I wouldn't want Bob to look like a fool.