Doktor S wrote:real life wrote:Doktor S wrote:That whole reply was one big strawman, so I'll not address it point by point.
I've never asserted 'my beliefs' are the correct ones, or even that there are correct beliefs.
It is you that believes in an immutable manual for human existence not I.
Yes I am smarter than most, what of it? Yes, it is plain to me that many have poor reasoning skills and are very gullible. Do you dispute this?
Since you answered no to both questions, surely you don't.
What we have is reason and logic. we can either work with them or against them, but only one way leads to true conclusions.
The difference is that your use of 'reason' and 'logic' has led you to the conclusion that you are god.
I think most would agree that conclusion is not reasonable or logical, so any other use of the terms by you is extremely suspect.
That you are incapable of understanding/enjoy purposefully misrepresenting my stance on autotheism is neither here nor there.This is an extremely weak dodge, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the argument presented.
Weak sauce,
real life, as usual.
I misrepresent? Let's see.....
Do you, or do you not, refer to yourself as god?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1732651&highlight=autotheism#1732651
Do you, or do you not, make up your own definition for god (yourself) as distinct from any standard definition? Yes, you do.
Communication is usually best when standards of language, including definitions, are observed.
If you tell me that you would like to sell me a 'hammer' and when you finally show the hammer it turns out to be a kumquat, then something vital is distorted in communication.
When you use the word 'god' in a novel way to describe yourself, then your purposeful twisting of language likewise does violence to communication.
You fit no definition of 'god' except the definition that you made up!
Yet you consider yourself 'logical' and skilled in 'reason'.
It's like a child who insists on being called 'little Prince'. It's laughable. You refer to yourself as 'god' , yet supposedly it is I who 'misrepresent' !!
For the same reason, any other communication from you must be considered equally suspect, because who knows what novel definition you may have assigned to other words that are otherwise commonly understood?