Definition please

That's exactly what I felt about it. Do we agree that reading should include comprehending?
Do not they test you in school on your comprehension when you read something?
If you do not comprehend it, should you not read it again?
I am not wrong, and it still doen't matter. You are making a child like big deal over a simple statement, that is true, provided that God does indeed exist.By the way you are acting, you are proving my point."Meaningless! Meaningless!"says the Teacher."Utterly meaningless!Everything is meaningless."What has been will be again,what has been done will be done again;there is nothing new under the sun.Is there anything of which one can say,"Look! This is something new"?It was here already, long ago;it was here before our time.For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;the more knowledge, the more grief.

Wow. You really, really don't like admitting you're wrong, do you? I began this exchange with one goal, taking issue with you over one statement. You have avoided the question repeatedly and I have persisted. That makes it a childish big deal? No. That's all this has been about.You made the statement. I challenged it. This should have been simple, but you have made it otherwise and I am not going to let you go on this point.All of your unimportant prattle and quoted poetry aside, you offer the following: Yes, yes, and yes, but the line of reasoning indicated by these questions is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy (see below), as I pointed out earlier. Need I explain why again? You are either wrong or your argument supports an atheistic position, for the reasons I have shown. It does matter because that is all this discussion is about. To repeat the pertinent points, you said: I showed, by the simple expedient of pointing out that I had read the bible and did not find god, that either your argument supported the propositon that god does not exist or you were in error in proposing it. When you finally responded, it was with this: Which I pointed was a fallacy. Your definition of comprehension of the bible or any other text is not the only one.Yet now, you claim that you were in fact right from the start. Care to demonstrate that? How are my arguments wrong? In light of my arguments, how can your position be correct?Stop preaching to me. I'm quite tired of it. Answer the actual questions I have posed.

Well, all of my unimportant prattle and quoted poetry, was from the bible. If you read it, you would have known that. Let's go back to my original statement.

quote:

---

Read the bible, and then make comparisons to real life, you'll figure it out on your own. "If" God is real, you'll find him.

---

Ahh, beatiful words of wisdom. If I said to go read the bible, and you'll find God, I might admit I was wrong. But that's not what I said, I said make the comparison to real life, that means you must comprehend it, and since you agree to comprehending it, then I guess I'm right.Even by your own admission, you didn't even understand what I said, a clear sign that you do not comprehend when you read Of course, not, because you left out the compare to real life part.
Something all atheists are famous for, and thats taking things out of conext to prove what? Nothing I guess, because it's all sillyness. You need ALL the pieces of the puzzle to see the larger picture mike.Good night, I'm done with this one.

You are done? Well, of course you are. Cut and run if you will, those of us who debate with theists are quite used to it. Well, at least we agree that it was unimportant, as is clearly indicated by it's source, and since you admit it's unimportance, you will understand that I skimmed it at best. I payed attention to the small parts of the post where you actually said something. In the same passage you accuse me of taking things out of context and then pull out one semantic point that is entirely invalid. Had you asked rather then assuming you know everything already, I could have told you that I of course had compared it to real life and did not find your god, so my point remains.You also continue to use a fallacious argument, so I will again explain your error. Perhaps another chorus of the song will let it sink in. It was your contention (and I shall find the quote if requested) that if one reads the bible and does not find god, then one did not properly comprehend it. This is what is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the classic description of which is:Person one: All true Scotsman drink whiskey.
Person two: Angus is a Scotsman and he does not drink whiskey.
Person One: Then Angus is no true Scotsman.In our case it is:Rat: All people who read and comprehend the bible find god.
Mike: I read and comprehended the bible and did not find god.
Rat: Then you did not truly "comprehend".Understand? I hope so. Buy the way, you may rely utterly on my reading skills. They are quite good.Also, I think my charges of arrogance have been in some degree affirmed by you declaring your own words (in spite of the clear falsehood, which I demonstrated before and here again) to be as you put it, "beatiful words of wisdom".So, as I said, cut and run if you will, but leave knowing you have never really responded to a simple criticism. I wonder if you can really not respond and stand exposed as not only wrong and unwilling to admit it, but also unwilling to even think about it.

You're getting just a little snarky sounding there Mike. Try to remain cooler.This is a faith and belief thread so the Bible can be used here I think. But I don't usually comment in this area.However, you are right that the various fallacies being committed are still fallacies.

I love the way you atheists give little names to stupid things, instead of dealing with the issue.Hey its no true scottsman, I have to be right. Well since you didn't even reconize the quotes I put are from the bible, then I have to say you really didn't comprehend it.Did you not find God, or did you choose not to find God? Yes I am done with your silly little antics of trying to get me to admit that I am wrong. Well if I was indeed wrong, I would admit it.
It's to bad that you think, that I think that I am always right, as this is not the case, and have admitted several times on this forum that I have been wrong. One of the few people to do so. Um, no we don't, I was quoting you, more signs of not comprehnding what you read, even if I did not include the quotations marks, it was obviously a quote from you. It's called humor, you should try it some time. I don't take myself that seriously. I was joking on myself, clearly not arrogance. More problems comprehending, you couldn't possibly think I was that serious?

You are correct, AdminNosy. Determined and willful ignorance will always get my nose out of joint. I will withdraw.

As I told AdminNosy, I will withdraw, and you are free to have the last word. The fact remains that you made a false, over-reaching statement abd then refused to back it up or support it in any valid way and then refused to admit to your error.As I said, your willful ignorance has annoyed me to the point that I cannot be civil. Good day to you and enjoy your tiny, demon-haunted world.This message has been edited by mikehager, 02-11-2005 11:51 AM

Your not giving me the last word, if you are accusing me of living in a demon filled world. This is wrong on so many levels, and comments like that are designed to do one thing. It is also not intelligent conversation. My statement was right on the money, and I further explained myself because you have trouble comprehending, I hope you appreciate the time I took out of my life to clear this up with you.I also feel as though I backed it up, and proved that you do in fact have trouble comprehending your own reading. This may infact be a demon, that doesn't let you be who you were designed to be. Because I see a beatiful person in there, even though you insult me. Yes, I know the truth hurts. So you believe in demons?

Why would Mike believe in Demons? He has never struck me as mentally ill.

quote:

---

This may infact be a demon, that doesn't let you be who you were designed to be. Because I see a beatiful person in there, even though you insult me.

---

and coming to this totally cold and having not followed all of the argument, if I was mike I would tell you to take your mindreading and stick it right up your ass.but that is just me.

You just showed me a lot of who you are.
You come in cold and make a stupid statement.Mike accused me first of living in a demon filled world, why don't you go curse him out?You just showed me your true self, and nothing that comes from your mouth is ever really rational anyway.You just hate Christians. What was it, you got abused by a Preist or something, now you take it out on the whole Christian world? Your mad at God because of what people did to you?I'm out of this one, it's going no where, even Jesus walked away from the lame.

I appreciate your comments, Charles. I haved been forced to withdraw from this, as you may have read, because I have reached a point with Rat where I cannot be civil, but thank you.

quote:

---

You just hate Christians. What was it, you got abused by a Preist or something, now you take it out on the whole Christian world? Your mad at God because of what people did to you?

---

Nothing at all to do with the church; you don't need to be a christian to display the sort of attitude you do. My real problem with you, is the way you project the nonsense in your mind onto the rest of us. I take issue with what you said to Mike and that means that I'm warped due to sexual abuses!!!!!Do you like that idea? Get you hot in your righteness?What a dark place your mind is, what a great advert your posts are for becoming an atheist.

DHA asks:
I have two questions.
1. Can any two believers on this board agree on a definition of god? 2. What moral code is derived from that god? 1. Can any two believers on this board agree on a definition of god? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-13-2005 04:26 AM