How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[Cow Poke]

It was well founded and you cut the reasoning out. Try again. Here it is:

Thanks, Charles, but it doesn't matter. When one person begins with "The above is ludicrous", there is no reasoning.

But, again, thank you ever so much for your refereeing!

[whag]

Of course it's not.

Your questions were literal non-sequiturs in context of my point. I was being kind.

Absolutely. We're not talking about moderates - we're talking about the "peaceful protesters" our Tweb libs have been defending.

If I have ever accused you of representing the views of all arch conservatives on TWeb--and I wouldn't be surprised if I did--I apologize. I can only take on one self-righteous ideologue at a time.

Then I'll leave you to that.

I'm sensing that you think there's a vast difference between "peaceful" protesters who hold arms with window smashers in three cities and the people who threaten Fauci with violence and accuse him of concocting a hoax.

[Charles]

Thanks, Charles, but it doesn't matter. When one person begins with "The above is ludicrous", there is no reasoning.

But, again, thank you ever so much for your refereeing!

I can see why you would like us to believe that but the reasoning is what you left out:

[...]If this God is omniscient and omnipotent It knew what the Devil/Lucifer would do before It ever created the Devil/Lucifer.

Nor is Satan in the Hebrew bible the same as your Christian "Devilevil

You see, there is a lot of reasoning. There is, however, very little reasoning in pretending the above does not contain reasoning. Cutting out the reasoning in the first place is another action that would rather give us reason to believe you were having trouble adressing the points made. Suggesting that the first sentence could somehow cause there to be no reasoning in the following sentences is rather desperate.

[Whateverman]

Epicurus leaves only 3 possibilities. Either,

God is incapable of stopping evil
He is unwilling to stop evil

One question arises from this. Do people wish that God destroys every one of us so that evil is stopped?

Only if your intent is to change the subject.

That question does not arise from the quoted text, because your God either has more than one option for stopping evil, or he's not omnipotent.

The only thing that question arises from is your need to ignore the simple logic which undermines your beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

Your questions were literal non-sequiturs in context of my point. I was being kind.

And, realizing that, I bowed out.

If I have ever accused you of representing the views of all arch conservatives on TWeb--and I wouldn't be surprised if I did--I apologize. I can only take on one self-righteous ideologue at a time.

I keep assuming we're "ok", and treat you as such, only to find I may be over-assuming.

I'm sensing that you think there's a vast difference between "peaceful" protesters who hold arms with window smashers in three cities and the people who threaten Fauci with violence and accuse him of concocting a hoax.

Again, I bowed out - I had butted in, as I so often do, and realized I didn't have a dog in that fight.

[Cow Poke]

I can see why you would like us to believe that but the reasoning is what you left out:

I really have no desire to have a conversation with you, Charles, because it usually ends up with you whining about attacks on your person.

[Whateverman]

I really have no desire to have a conversation with you, Charles, because it usually ends up with you whining about attacks on your person.

Another insult-and-retreat.

That's a hat-trick for today, little buddy ;)

[Cow Poke]

Another insult-and-retreat.

That's a hat-trick for today, little buddy ;)

Actually, I'm still here, little anklebiter, I just don't enjoy these exchanges with Charles.

But, on!!!

[Charles]

I really have no desire to have a conversation with you, Charles, because it usually ends up with you whining about attacks on your person.

You could avoid me pointing out your ad hominems by not making them. You could simply adress the points. I see you refusing to do so once again.

First you cut out H_A's points, then you said there was no reasoning. When I insisted the first sentence could not possibly cause there to be no reasoning in the rest of the sentences your last excuse is my person. Must be frustrating to have to use such methods.

[JimL]

As do all Christians Jim...

Well, only all of those christians who actually think about and accept the idea of the devil can be said to truly believe, and I believe those christians to be a small minority of the totality who still consider themselves to be christians. Most christians, in my honest opinion, like most other religious, just like the idea of eternal life and if that means they have to believe in the rest of the crazy stuff, then they just don't bother questioning it. So, I don't believe that all christians believe in the devil, I believe they just don't think that much about it.

[Cow Poke]

You could avoid me pointing out your ad hominems by not making them.

I'm being nicer to you, Charles, like in the other thread. I didn't have to point out that I wasn't in authority over there.

You could simply adress the points. I see you refusing to do so once again.

Declining. Not refusing. I'm not obligated to bite on every little bit of bait that is trolled through the water.

First you cut out H_A's points,

I did.

then you said there was no reasoning.

Ah, lemme clear that up --- there is no "reasoning" with somebody who begins by telling you your position is ludicrous. My apologies to H_A.

When I insisted the first sentence could not possibly cause there to be no reasoning in the rest of the sentences your last excuse is my person. Must be frustrating to have to use such methods.

And, again, I meant there is no reasoning with somebody who begins by telling you your position is ludicrous.

I suppose we could go round and round on this like folks have done for 2,000 years -- I simply don't see the value in that.

[Cow Poke]

I was being kind.

So, lemme just be clear.

I find you to be one of the less obnoxious opponents here, and though we'll probably only agree on 3% or less of what we discuss, I enjoy you being here.

One of my character faults is that, just because I like somebody, I assume they like me too.

So, I often take a friendly jab at you, which you seem to take as an attack.

I understand that in this medium, as there are some who are here simply for the PURPOSE of ankle-biting and trying to be jerks.

I don't find you doing that, at least not to me. I could be all wrong! Maybe you think I'm the spawn of Satan, but I think what happens too many times, is that we get into this "us and them" mode. And we assume that "the other side" is obviously just attacking for the sake of fighting.

I've had to remind you in the past that I'm not at war with you.... again, I think we tend to lump all the "other guys" together, and forget that not everybody "on the other side" is not at war with us.

I give JimL a hard time, for example, because ALL HE IS HERE for is to pick fights with Christians and be a general [that word I'm not saying anymore]. But I really do try to remind myself that not everybody "on the other side" is a JimL. Like Leon said - the "liberals" here on Tweb don't represent real liberals in real life. That's actually been helpful. So, I try to sort out --- for example, Carpe! --- he appears to be one of the most obnoxious posters to some of my buddies, but I genuinely like the guy, and you'll see us all the time taking friendly jabs at each other.

I do think we have some really immature and insecure posters here who tend to think it's noble to try to sucker punch somebody into a debate, but we've seen them come and go.

So -- I'm not wishing to be at war with you.

[Cow Poke]

Well, only all of those christians who actually think about and accept the idea of the devil can be said to truly believe, and I believe those christians to be a small minority of the totality who still consider themselves to be christians. Most christians, in my honest opinion, like most other religious, just like the idea of eternal life and if that means they have to believe in the rest of the crazy stuff, then they just don't bother questioning it. So, I don't believe that all christians believe in the devil, I believe they just don't think that much about it.

According to Gallup, 61% of Christians in America believe in the devil.

ETA: Actually, that's 61% of AMERICANS, not Christians, so, I'm looking into this some more. However, if 61% of Americans believe in the devil, I'd suspect that a higher percentage of Christians do.

[whag]

So, lemme just be clear.

I find you to be one of the less obnoxious opponents here, and though we'll probably only agree on 3% or less of what we discuss, I enjoy you being here.

One of my character faults is that, just because I like somebody, I assume they like me too.

So, I often take a friendly jab at you, which you seem to take as an attack.

I understand that in this medium, as there are some who are here simply for the PURPOSE of ankle-biting and trying to be jerks.

I don't find you doing that, at least not to me. I could be all wrong! Maybe you think I'm the spawn of Satan, but I think what happens too many times, is that we get into this "us and them" mode. And we assume that "the other side" is obviously just attacking for the sake of fighting.

I've had to remind you in the past that I'm not at war with you.... again, I think we tend to lump all the "other guys" together, and forget that not everybody "on the other side" is not at war with us.

I give JimL a hard time, for example, because ALL HE IS HERE for is to pick fights with Christians and be a general [that word I'm not saying anymore]. But I really do try to remind myself that not everybody "on the other side" is a JimL. Like Leon said - the "liberals" here on Tweb don't represent real liberals in real life. That's actually been helpful. So, I try to sort out --- for example, Carpe! --- he appears to be one of the most obnoxious posters to some of my buddies, but I genuinely like the guy, and you'll see us all the time taking friendly jabs at each other.

I do think we have some really immature and insecure posters here who tend to think it's noble to try to sucker punch somebody into a debate, but we've seen them come and go.

So -- I'm not wishing to be at war with you.

I'm just breaking your nads when I say stuff like that. I like you and I've tried to reform myself from my obnoxious ways.

My only real adversaries here are mossy and MM for reasons that are hard to explain.

Personally, I don't think the JimLs here are worth getting into protracted debates with, and I think you know that! But I understand why you can't help yourself, as I can't help jab mossy for her YEC views. Probably because she represents my mother in law. HAHAHA

[Cow Poke]

I'm just breaking your nads when I say stuff like that. I like you and I've tried to reform myself from my obnoxious ways.

Even when I said "I find you to be one of the less obnoxious opponents here", I thought about Carpe telling me, "yeah, thanks for the backhanded complement".

My only real adversaries here are mossy and MM for reasons that are hard to explain.

MM, I can understand. Mossy --- I don't get that. She's really a good person, but gets tired of being beat up all the time for her sincerely held religious beliefs. She's a very good friend of mine.

Personally, I don't think the JimLs here are worth getting into protracted debates with, and I think you know that!

Which is why I often get accused of being snarky with him --- I don't take him seriously enough for a protracted debate. He's like a turd in a punch bowl --- you really don't want to have anything to do with him, but you just can't stop looking and wondering.

But I understand why you can't help yourself, as I can't help jab mossy for her YEC views. Probably because she represents my mother in law. HAHAHA

She's the kind of person who, if you were her neighbor and became deathly ill, would be cooking and delivering food, and getting others involved.