What are you talking about? Wow! You actually make some sort of sense, with this remark. Well done! What do you think ''theist'' means? I'll tell you. A theist is a person who believes in God. A theist is not an atheist. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Those positions aren't just words, they are real positions, and they are identifiable. You probably don't get what that means in real terms, but others might. Not to a theist, or any person who can actually think independently. A blind person cannot see. That is the way it is. An atheist cannot comprehend God. That's the way it is. You can deny it all you like, but it doesn't change anything. You're simply deceiving yourself by thinking your worldview is all there is. jan.
So let me see what you're saying. Capracus is not an atheist, and not a theist. But Capracus is God. As a theist, I don't really understand that position. Can you break it down. Firstly: What is God? jan.
Yep www.sciforums.com/threads/you-be-the-judge-sexual-assault.161205/page-21#post-3545922 Context? Who cares for it, right?
You can't even read your own posts now? It's the same discussion as 2 + 2 = 5. You quoted it. Try to keep up.
www.sciforums.com/threads/you-be-the-judge-sexual-assault.161205/page-21#post-3545922 Context? Who cares for it, right?
Your posting, on the other hand, is comprehensible - once the aberrant language has been adjusted. We agree on that. Unless you are now confusing your posting with the words of God Almighty. The world here is one in which you have posted no evidence or argument to justify rejecting and denying Capracus as your God.
Ironically, if your statement was true, that would also be another example of what I was talking about
You: your statement is babbling nonsense. Me: it was a response to the babbling nonsense Baldeee was proposing. You have to see the weirdness he was trying to float in the name of philosophy to understand what is going on. You: There is no need for me to do that. All I need to do is read what you say. Me: Context is kind of important. It's about 50% of any discussion. Ignore it at your peril. You: No its not. Me: Didn't you just emerge battered and bruised from a particular thread where you were on the brink of being banned for apparently supporting paedophilia? You: Sure, what of it. Me: I guess you are fortunate that some ulterior context to the discussion was looked at, and not just merely half a dozen of your posts in isolation. You: The difference here is that I know when context is important, and I know when context is not. 2+2 doesnt equal five you know. Me: (avoids suggesting that one try googling "2+2=5" to find out how even that can be framed with context, since its now apparent exactly what sort of fool one is dealing with). Um, I think you are a hypocrite. You: You don't know what a hypocrite is. Me: Bye now.
With the capacity to do anything I can be all things. I can be Capracus the agnostic biological unit, Jan the ignornat thiest, and omnimax God all at the same time or independently.