Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<p>

Oneguy21 took the bait regarding the reconciliation question because it was clear to him how I was using the term “agnostic” at that point in the discussion.</p>

<p>It’s interesting that you are the only one who has posted in this thread that has failed to understand my intended usage of the term.</p>

<p>Reconcile your tirade against ambiguous language starting around post #11 with your recent defense of ambiguity.

</p>

<p>I’ll let you in on a little secret: your claim about me being the only one failing to understand something doesn’t actually carry that much weight when you consider that there are only 4 other people who bothered responding. Not to mention, the majority doesn’t dictate the truth. Do I smell a fallacy?</p>

<p>

I’m glad you mentioned that because it happens to take the comprehension level of roughly a ten-year-old to think that quoting “It’s impossible to prove a deity” would constitute a complete thought.

Who said I thought that? I recognized it from the beginning but didn’t bother to bring it up because you would most likely cry “red herring” if I made a deal about such a trivial grammatical error. I also stated in my previous posts that I thought in both cases the implied noun is the deity’s existence. So even if it’s not explicitly stated, it’s implied. Or are you going to disagree with me over that?</p>

<p>Well done on addressing the actual content of that quote though. Well done.</p>

<p>

Using the second quote you provided, refer back to Oneguy21.

I’m amazed that after 20 or so posts of hassling me to tell you what I believed to be your straw man fallacy, you didn’t even bother directly addressing it once I finally made it clear to you what I thought it was. Instead, you just directed me to somebody else’s reply.</p>

<p>What happened broski?</p>

<p>

Starting at post #6, the inception of the debate, I did. You were baited because I disputed your dogmatic approach to the discussion. Sadly, you’re still being baited considering I have already clarified what my definitions of agnosticism are and you’re sitting here disputing whether or not adding a negative changes a sentence’s meaning.

I thought I agreed with you?</p>

<p>

@you

@me

@you

No, clearly your understanding is still flawed considering you still fail to acknowledge the fact that you utilized one. I am undermining your legitimacy, but my justification isn’t simply “You’re an idiot” unless you consider proving you wrong equivalent.

Look above.

</p>

<p>I did. I just assumed you were aware that by the time I got to this part of your post I would have already refuted your defense regarding straw man arguments (which you somehow consider to be of equal value against the accusation of ad hominem). By post #19 it was clear you were running out of ways to defend yourself from the allegation of using ad hominem. This is just circling the drain.

I would be aware that my defense would be refuted by the time you were some portion through my post? Why would I be aware of that? I’m supposed to preemptively guess what kind of reply you’re going to make? What are you even on about?</p>

<p>

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make accusations without justification so for the second time address the above quote.

Um, I did. Do I have to put a quote around two quotes to make it clear that I’m addressing two things simultaneously? Or are you incapable of understanding sarcasm?</p>

<p>

It is actually pretty embarrassing seeing you fall apart. I find that when people start to resort to sarcasm, they’ve begun to run out of ways to logically defend themselves. For the sake of arguing, make as many typos as you want. You’ll gain nothing and look dumber in the process.

Lol. I’ll look dumber by making typos? I’m so sorry if you actually believe that.</p>

<p>

I find that when people start to resort to sarcasm, they’ve begun to run out of ways to logically defend themselves.

But you know, bringing up grammatical errors and calling others dumb if they make typos ISN’T indicative that an individual has run out of ways to logically defend himself. </p>

<p>Well done.</p>

<p>

I wasn’t comparing you to the believer, but the rest of the script fit if I replaced him with you.

Awesome. Re-assert what you think and then repeat the comic with some words which have been replaced. </p>

<p>

For your comprehension,

I’ll just take this as a tacit admission of you being incapable of understanding sarcasm.</p>

<p>

1. You admit it’s a debate for the second time.

LOL</p>

<p>[insert previous reply]</p>

<p>This reply was gold. Honestly, I think I just wiped the floor with you. How can you possible redeem yourself after such a crushing blow?</p>