Incase you don't grasp my argument against your use of "hypocrisy " or any "wrong"

Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.

For someone who can identify someone who is "currently incapable of understanding truth" you should be able to grasp this.

Give account for truth & quit hiding cowardly behind folly & boasts of superior intellect

How can I discuss truth with someone who can't even contemplate what is or isn't already known?

We as a species have acquired a great deal of "knowledge"... much of it is based on axioms which aren't known for certain as to whether they are true or not. (Edit: Those who are careful, label the knowledge as such).

You are basically saying I should concede, and say that a being higher than me knows, so I should cease in my desire for further understanding because I'll never achieve that beings level of knowledge... which sounds like an argument of a defeatist. I certainly hope I am misinterpreting your suggestion.

Further, every bit of "truth" you claim to believe in, you claim it's fundamentally based on the belief that this being exists and is necessarily true.

I'm saying I think you're 99.99999999999999999 ... percent wrong.

I have to leave a little margin in case you are correct, but I won't hold my breath on it.

If you can ditch the dogma, and allow it that the greater being does not care whether I seek knowledge or not... or whether I exist or not... or whether even we as a species exists or not, I can probably drop a few 9s off that.

Basically as the probability against a hypothesis goes to infinity, it will continue to get closer and closer the more subjectivity and errant logic you add to it.

Ben, to risk being led down one of your silly rabbit holes

The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false’.

Give account for truth or forsake knowledge

They're not mutually exclusive

You should KNOW this

I disagree, you'll see I disagree if you re-read my previous posts.

Truth != Knowledge

With hypothesis's, you have to be careful... if one of your axioms is bad, that's it, it's over... the rest of it turns into nonsense very quickly...

You end up with angels and demons and sh*t.

It's telling that you bring God into this discussion.

Why would "conceding there's an all knowing creator" mean you shouldn't seek to discover all the treasures of wisdom hidden for His and your glory to find out?

I'm certainly not "saying" that in any way "basically" or otherwise

I'm not saying you don't know things for certain. You are.

Dogma has nothing to do with God's love for you & I

Start a separate thread or pm if you must continue
I'm not hijacking this thread anymore since you brought God into it AGAIN!

I just checked... this article is about demons... it's appropriate.

For the record I brought angels and demons into it as ideas that you get when your axioms are faulty... not God.

Also for the record, you already hijacked the thread... it's too late for that.

You try to discredit everything I say because I don't believe in your absolute truth sh*t...

Which is comical to me, thus the reason I keep playing.

Is it absolutely true I try to discredit everything you you say?


If there is no God, then all that exists is time & chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts & mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew & a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically & I fizz theistically.

This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, & sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water.

This means that we have no reason for assigning truth & falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right & wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water pinky.

There are no ordinary people, Ben. We're similar to the angels & demons in that sense.

It's immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, & exploit.

Forgive my unkind & callous tendency with you.
As you say, you play for comical relief

Me too! It just feels like I'm the only one having fun most of the time

Never put off till tomorrow what may be done the day after tomorrow just as well.
- Mark Twain