Re: to those of you who believe Pascal's wager is a decent argument
- From: "JessHC" <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jan 2007 07:32:30 -0800
"Midjis" <midwinter_m@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"G-Net" <netnerve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote :
That is YOUR assumption which has no data to explicitly predict that.
Do you have data to convince me that the world WILL last forever? Given
that conventional wisdom tells us it will end, the burden of proof is on
YOU to prove a claim to the contrary. Get on with it.
I don't have to prove anything one way or the other. Your idea of
"conventional wisdom" is YOUR idea of conventional wisdom and
does not necessarily apply to anyone else.
Since you offer no objective, verifiable evidence for any of your wild-
ass assertions, there is no reason to accept them as anything other
than unsupported wild-ass assertions made by an ignorant, dishonest
And you take that observation to be a boast that I know exactly
how it will happen? Remarkable.
I was asking a legitimate question.
No, you were being petulant and weak - just as you are being every time
you post "...in your opinion" as though it's a real response.
Which is after all, just your opinion.
If you'd grow up a little, you might find people more willing to take
I have many people who "take me seriously" so whether a few losers in
a newsgroup do makes no difference to me.
I'm sure all the lurkers support you in email.
Yep. Not my religion; not my problem.
Not my problem either.
Good. Then it's a problem for neither of us. Marvellous. Why were we
talking about it again?
Did the drugs wear off?
You were taking drugs? That explains a lot.
G, you're going to have to realise how craven this response is.
You are giving an opinion of things, nothing more. I am merely
pointing out that it IS your opinion and ONLY your opinion.
No, as I said, what you're doing is telling me that you don't have
anything with which to actually oppose what I've said.
And you have nothing to oppose what I've said either.
Which is a blatant lie. Scripture has been used to refute virtually
everything you've posted.
But you don't have the balls to say "I can't answer that", so you try
to pretend you're above all that by dismissively pointing out the obvious.
You make assumptions that are not true. I choose not to answer many
times for reasons that it would be a complete waste of my time.
Posting your repetitive, dishonest, lame, childish retorts is an
effective use of your valuable time?
You can choose to lie about my reasons if you choose but you are being
dishonest in doing so.
No, we're making a comment about the only apparent possible reason for
your dodges and dishonesty.
And, this being a newsgroup, that I'm expressing my opinion IS blindingly
obvious. The question is, can you show my opinion to be wrong?
I am expressing MY opinion just as you are that I disagree with you.
The difference being, you've supported your opinion with hot air,
while everyone else has supported their opinion with objective,
So far, the answer would be "no" - and that's the answer you really give
every time you use those words.
You are lying.
There you go again.
No one is "superior" to anyone else.
Sure you believe that? Really sure? Let's see you behave accordingly, then.
I have not behaved any other way.
Of course you have; you refuse to support any of your assertions,
because you claim "it would be a complete waste of my time." In other
words, your time is more "valuable" than ours. And yet, you spend
endless hours here, dodging and lying. Your time is so valuable you
can't spare a moment supporting your assertions, but isn't too
valuable to spend it lying and dodging, dodging and lying, over and
over and over.
I promise you that I don't care.
Oh, I don't suppose for one moment that you do.
So why do you keep responding?
"I don't care" is just a slightly more contemptuous way to say "in your
opinion"; which, as we've seen, means only "I can't deal with this".
Which is yet another lie.
Not at all. If you could support your assertion, you would; there is
no legitimate reason not to. Therefore, you can't.
What "theory" would that be?
The theory - if I can drag you back to the point you were originally
arguing - that the words "the sooner we eradicate dangerous and obscene
ideas like yours, the world will be a better place" are a threat.
I still believe it was.
Perhaps, but you've demonstrated lack of understanding about all sorts
of things before, particularly about what the definition of "threat"
As far as I can see the only thing that sentence directly threatens is grammar.
That's your opinion, I disagree.
Since you're spelling and grammar challenged, that isn't surprising.
What would be the point in doing that? I don't have a vindictive
nature nor do I have any reason to want to do that.
Then stop making vague accusations about something being a threat,
especially if you don't actually understand what a threat is.
You are again lying. I obviously DO know what a threat is.
No, you obviously don't, which is why you can't define the term, and
constantly misapply it.
- Prev by Date: Re: to those of you who believe Pascal's wager is a decent argument
- Next by Date: Re: to those of you who believe Pascal's wager is a decent argument
- Previous by thread: Re: to those of you who believe Pascal's wager is a decent argument
- Next by thread: Re: to those of you who believe Pascal's wager is a decent argument