|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:04 pm
Sinner Thalys Sinner He said it was a valid belief. That's not "getting rid of it". No no, I meant I got rid of my statement, I didn't "get rid of" anything he said. Once again, sorry 'bout that. Haha...now we're just correcting each of our posts to fix up that confusion...let's leave it as it is. whee
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:04 pm
Sinner Mutsuke I do supply it as a valid belief Now support your claim that this is a valid belief. I don't have to, I'm not here to argue it's validity, I am courteous enough to support the assumed validity concept. If I assume validity that catholicism is Christian, then why shouldn't I assume validity that it is satanic? It's more of acknowlidging a possability than supporting a belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:05 pm
Kutsuke If I assume validity that catholicism is Christian, then why shouldn't I assume validity that it is satanic? Because one can be backed up, the other one cannot. Guess which? Kutsuke It's more of acknowlidging a possability than supporting a belief. Then "validity" isn't the word you're looking for. You mean to say "possibility". DUH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:06 pm
To support the acknowledging of a posability, I bring forth the logical conclusion that a possibility ruled out is a chance of ruling out the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:10 pm
Sinner, it's movie night in the dorm lounge, so I bequeath the prosecution of this debate to you. Later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:10 pm
I shall have to reply with a "DUUUUUUUH" and a "That's nice, but altogether irrelevant, since we're talking about validity of beliefs and not possibility of validity".
Mix and match as you please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:13 pm
Sinner Kutsuke If I assume validity that catholicism is Christian, then why shouldn't I assume validity that it is satanic? Because one can be backed up, the other one cannot. Guess which? Kutsuke It's more of acknowlidging a possability than supporting a belief. Then "validity" isn't the word you're looking for. You mean to say "possibility". DUH. Thankyou for stating your opinion that one can be backed up, as far as I'm concerned catholics are far from making me a believer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:14 pm
Kutsuke Thankyou for stating your opinion that one can be backed up, Have you noticed that you start using the word "opinion" whenever you start to lose? Anyways, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. If you wish to challenge it, be my guest. Kutsuke as far as I'm concerned catholics are far from making me a believer. That's nice. But, unsurprisingly, irrelevant. Catholicism meets the definition of Christian, therefore Catholics are Christians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:19 pm
How can you discuss validity without discussing possability of validity? Doing so would be absolutely a major way of preventing the truth from being discovered.
I don't want catholics to be good or bad or Christian or satanic, and I don't want to believe one way or the other. I have been influenced to the point that I have suggested satanic as a valid possability. I don't care if you agree or disagree.
We are here for the same reason, to know the truth, and if anyone lets anything get in the way of discovering the truth, then it gets in everyone's way of discovering the truth.
If you are not here to know the truth about catholocism, then this isn't the thread you should be posting in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Kutsuke How can you discuss validity without discussing possability of validity? Doing so would be absolutely a major way of preventing the truth from being discovered. Except that you're ignoring the fact that in order for a claim to be valid (like, for example, "Catholics are the tools of Satan") it has to be backed up. And since you haven't presented anything to back it up, it isn't valid. However, it could potentially be valid. If someone were to back it up. Which you haven't done. So it isn't. See how simple this is? Kutsuke We are here for the same reason, to know the truth, and if anyone lets anything get in the way of discovering the truth, then it gets in everyone's way of discovering the truth. You're funny. Kutsuke If you are not here to know the truth about catholocism, then this isn't the thread you should be posting in. I already know about Catholicism. In fact, I know a great deal about it. But it appears that you don't know anything about thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:23 pm
Sinner Kutsuke Thankyou for stating your opinion that one can be backed up, Have you noticed that you start using the word "opinion" whenever you start to lose? Anyways, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. If you wish to challenge it, be my guest. Kutsuke as far as I'm concerned catholics are far from making me a believer. That's nice. But, unsurprisingly, irrelevant. Catholicism meets the definition of Christian, therefore Catholics are Christians. If only it were that easy. Christian is to believe what is written the Bible. Catholic is to believe what is written in the doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 pm
Kutsuke If only it were that easy. Christian is to believe what is written the Bible. Support this claim. Kutsuke Catholic is to believe what is written in the doctrine. And the doctrine says to follow the Bible. And the doctrine. You follow both. Therefore, they're Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:29 pm
Sinner Kutsuke How can you discuss validity without discussing possability of validity? Doing so would be absolutely a major way of preventing the truth from being discovered. Except that you're ignoring the fact that in order for a claim to be valid (like, for example, "Catholics are the tools of Satan") it has to be backed up. And since you haven't presented anything to back it up, it isn't valid. However, it could potentially be valid. If someone were to back it up. Which you haven't done. So it isn't. See how simple this is? Kutsuke We are here for the same reason, to know the truth, and if anyone lets anything get in the way of discovering the truth, then it gets in everyone's way of discovering the truth. You're funny. Kutsuke If you are not here to know the truth about catholocism, then this isn't the thread you should be posting in. I already know about Catholicism. In fact, I know a great deal about it. But it appears that you don't know anything about thinking. Fine, I challenge you, teach me. Teach me why it is a valid possibility for Catholism to Christian and not Satanic logically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:37 pm
Kutsuke Fine, I challenge you, teach me. Teach me why it is a valid possibility for Catholism to Christian and not Satanic logically. Stop moving the goalposts. I already said it was possible for Catholicism to be Satanic. What I'm arguing against isn't the possibility of validity, but your claim of validity. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:48 pm
Sinner Kutsuke Fine, I challenge you, teach me. Teach me why it is a valid possibility for Catholism to Christian and not Satanic logically. Stop moving the goalposts. I already said it was possible for Catholicism to be Satanic. What I'm arguing against isn't the possibility of validity, but your claim of validity. Big difference. So there is a possability but believeing they are Satanic is invalid? I know this is reverse logic as it rests on me to prove they are, but as far as I've seen Catholics haven't been proven Christian so it's more of a stalemate to me than one way or the other. The second important point is that I believe that the possibility of Catholocism to be satanic is greater than it to be Christian. I have read many arguments supporting Catholocism to be Christian, but they actually lead me to believe that it is more likely satanic disguised as Christian. I want to know if you can show me that Catholocism is more likely to be Christian than satanic. Don't prove it to me, that will defeat the purpose of me wanting to learn about Catholocism. I have to decide what I believe on my own, but please, I urge you to influence my decision as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
