Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

[Angel]

False, you are tryingto get me to accept your strawman I will not

Did you or did you not assert the following: "my definition of belief which is really nothing more than opinion"?

 

[Angel]

As used in that stastment yes

What does "as used in that statement" mean? Looks like your attempt at some sort of wiggle room.

Did you or did you not claim that your "definition of belief" makes belief out as "really nothing more than opinion"?

 

[Quag]

Did you or did you not assert the following: "my definition of belief which is really nothing more than opinion"?

Yes and?

 

[Quag]

What does "as used in that statement" mean? Looks like your attempt at some sort of wiggle room.

No I am trying to avoid the wiggling you are attempting

Did you or did you not claim that your "definition of belief" makes belief out as "really nothing more than opinion"?

As it pertains to my statment yes.
Stop trying to make strawemen

 

[bongsaway]

If one uses logic it's clear god of the 'bible' is a fictional character. I still haven't gotten a reasonable answer to how did a human live in the belly of a fish for three days and saying with god anything is possible is not an acceptable answer.

Morality is subjective.

There is no god. If we are god's creation, that entity sure screwed up unless it wanted a species of killers.

 

[Angel]

No I am trying to avoid the wiggling you are attempting


As it pertains to my statment yes.
Stop trying to make strawemen

Look, this "strawman" business as an excuse for not answering a straightforward question is a transparent dodge. I would as you to identify the "strawman" you keep referring to, but you'll only reply that you won't feed the "strawman."
Meanwhile, you keep hedging when asked to take responsibility for your own words.
Looks like we're approaching the level of pointless non-threatening meta-posting you look to steer discussion toward for your own comfort.

 

[Quag]

Look, this "strawman" business as an excuse for not answering a straightforward question is a transparent dodge. I would as you to identify the "strawman" you keep referring to, but you'll only reply that you won't feed the "strawman."
Meanwhile, you keep hedging when asked to take responsibility for your own words.
Looks like we're approaching the level of pointless non-threatening meta-posting you look to steer discussion toward for your own comfort.

I answered your question not my fault if it wasnt the answer you wanted.
There was no hedging ther was an outright refusal to let you make a strawman.
The problem here is you refuse to engage in any meanignful way because you know that leads to you having to defend your "proofs"

 

[Angel]

If one uses logic it's clear god of the 'bible' is a fictional character. I still haven't gotten a reasonable answer to how did a human live in the belly of a fish for three days and saying with god anything is possible is not an acceptable answer.

Morality is subjective.

There is no god. If we are god's creation, that entity sure screwed up unless it wanted a species of killers.

You've wandered into the wrong thread, tourist. The religion threads are in another building.

 

[Angel]

I answered your question not my fault if it wasnt the answer you wanted.
There was no hedging ther was an outright refusal to let you make a strawman.
The problem here is you refuse to engage in any meanignful way because you know that leads to you having to defend your "proofs"

Okay, I'll bite. So what is this "strawman" you keep posting about? What "strawman" am I trying to make?

 

[Quag]

Okay, I'll bite. So what is this "strawman" you keep posting about? What "strawman" am I trying to make?

Your continued attempts to change the meaning of the word belief in my statement and attempts to pretend that my statement means all premises are beleifs.

But now that we have establised that all your threads on proving God are a waste of time as they are doomed to fail (by your own statements) why do you persist?

 

[Angel]

Your continued attempts to change the meaning of the word belief in my statement and attempts to pretend that my statement means all premises are beleifs.

But now that we have establised that all your threads on proving God are a waste of time as they are doomed to fail (by your own statements) why do you persist?

Again, I was not trying to change your definition -- I quoted you directly several times.
Anyway, we now have you confirming your own quoted definition of "belief": to wit, "really nothing more than opinion."

We're making progress!

 

[Quag]

Again, I was not trying to change your definition -- I quoted you directly several times.
Anyway, we now have you confirming your own quoted definition of "belief": to wit, "really nothing more than opinion."

We're making progress!

Beleif as used in my statement.

 

[Quag]

Angel??

 

[Angel]

 

[Quag]

Evidenlty Angel never had any intention of actually having a discussion

 

[Angel]

Evidenlty Angel never had any intention of actually having a discussion

Look who's talking! And to himself no less!

 

[Angel]

Beleif as used in my statement.

Evidenlty Angel never had any intention of actually having a discussion

This is what you've argued, Quag:

Belief is merely opinion, according to one of the definitions in a dictionary, a dictionary definition you choose because this is what you mean to say in your assertion rejecting the premises in Angel's argument as being nothing more than belief.

Yes?

Then Angel argued:

Well, all premises are beliefs, according to a dictionary definition that says belief is the mental acceptance of a statement, a dictionary definition I choose because this is what I mean to say.

I use the same argument you offer, and the result is that all argument is matter merely of belief, and discussion ends.

 

[Quag]

This is what you've argued, Quag:

Belief is merely opinion, according to one of the definitions in a dictionary, a dictionary definition you choose because this is what you mean to say in your assertion rejecting the premises in Angel's argument as being nothing more than belief.

Yes?

Then Angel argued:

Well, all premises are beliefs, according to a dictionary definition that says belief is the mental acceptance of a statement, a dictionary definition I choose because this is what I mean to say.

1. You havent proven all premises are beliefs
2. You are using 2 different definitions of belief

I use the same argument you offer, and the result is that all argument is matter merely of belief, and discussion ends.

You used my statement with my definition then made another claim (which you have yet to even attempt to prove) using another definition then tried to shove that other definition back into my statement in order to avoid any actual discussion

 

[Angel]

1. You havent proven all premises are beliefs
2. You are using 2 different definitions of belief


You used my statement with my definition then made another claim (which you have yet to even attempt to prove) using another definition then tried to shove that other definition back into my statement in order to avoid any actual discussion

You're still not getting it. I justify my claim (that all premises are beliefs) in exactly the same way you justify your claim (that belief is only opinion) and all discussion becomes impossible. I'm demonstrating the absurdity of your justification.

 

[Quag]

You're still not getting it. I justify my claim (that all premises are beliefs) in exactly the same way you justify your claim (that belief is only opinion) and all discussion becomes impossible. I'm demonstrating the absurdity of your justification.

Actually I am getting it you are using two different definitions of the word belief in order to avoid actual deiscussion

 

[Angel]

Actually I am getting it you are using two different definitions of the word belief in order to avoid actual deiscussion

You're using your definition and I'm using mine -- both uses justified by your method of justification exactly, word for word, verbatim, your argument.

 

[Quag]

You're using your definition and I'm using mine -- both uses justified by your method of justification exactly, word for word, verbatim, your argument.

Yes but you are trying to retro fit your definition into my statrement ie you are still trying to create a strawman

 

[Angel]

Yes but you are trying to retro fit your definition into my statrement ie you are still trying to create a strawman

No siree, addressee. I'm accepting your definition of belief based on your justifying argument, and I'm asserting my definition of belief based on your justifying argument.
And I'm demonstration that your justifying argument puts an end to discussion.

 

[Quag]

No siree, addressee. I'm accepting your definition of belief based on your justifying argument, and I'm asserting my definition of belief based on your justifying argument.
And I'm demonstration that your justifying argument puts an end to discussion.

You are attempting a bait and switch which is really just you trying to make the same strawman you have tried since the beggining

The only thing that puts an end to the discussion is your constant failed attemtps tot make strawmen

 

[Angel]

You are attempting a bait and switch which is really just you trying to make the same strawman you have tried since the beggining

The only thing that puts an end to the discussion is your constant failed attemtps tot make strawmen

No bait and switch, no styrawman -- I simply accept your argument on the on hand and rely on the same argument on the other.

Your argument: "mine is a generally accepted meaning of the word found in a dictionary and I rely on that meaning because that is what I mean to say in my statement" is exactly, word for word, my argument.

Your own argument, adopted by your opponent, results in the impossibility of any further discussion about arguments.