CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am always disheartened when someone throws out a passage from the Bible as proof of anything. Do you really expect non-Christians to care what is in the Bible? I can't understand why even Christians would defer such judgments to a 2,000 year old book.
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
I never will understand christians like you. Jesus (who you call your god, by the way... don't forget that) preached to love thy neighbor. He didn't include any ifs, ands, or buts to that statement. He literally made friends with sinners, like Mary Magdalene, and went against the established religious leaders. And then modern radical christians take his messages and completely go against them. Y'all should be ashamed.
Well technically speaking, two men don't lie together in the same way a man lies with a woman. So if the bible says that he shouldn't... well, he's not ;)
"Anal-lovers are sinners" although I burst out laughing as this is the first time I heard this, I must say that I have engaged in anal sex (as the penetrator) with a few of my female 'beneficial' friends. I suppose God will smite me for fornicating (maybe, remember it was anal penetration not vaginal), but will he smite me for, as I pondered, 'anal' penetration?
But.... Then again I must not even lust. So I guess in order for me to function properly to engage in anal sex (I.e. Maintain a boner) I suppose my natural bioneurological reactions giving rise to [a boner] would entail lust.... But does it? Let's assume I have a sexual dysfunction opposite to that of erectile dysfunction (though arbitrary erections could be considered a dysfunction) and I simply just engage in penetration for reasons unknown (though not lustful), would that then, be sinful? (Note: No lust, or biblical definition of 'sex'.)
Hah, yet you cannot respond to my statements regarding your contradictory claims and blatant false statements.....
But you sure can attempt to recieve up-votes by pointing out something that is entirely impossible to you, which therefore makes it impossible for others as well? Lol you're a joke kid; Please stop responding to my arguments since you're clearly soneone who is academically incompetent and wishes to only make others laugh or point out something as being false- even when you know you cannot prove it to be. I'm sure this site has a place for you somewhere but not where intellect is a requisite for substantive debating.
You: Oh and by the way is your obsession with me teaching English. It is something I do in my spare time. My formation is in law and I am a medical student. How about you mention one of those once in a while
Me: Well... I honestly don't care about what you claim your other disciplines are, the fact that you teach English yet:
1 - you didn't (or perhaps still don't) know the definition of Grammar given that you have said that syntax and vocabulary is entirely separate from it;
2- you have openly stated murder is objectively wrong while asserting it as fact given the definition then kind of turned away once you began to realize that it more of a philosophical argument rather than a semantic one- you did this once you realized Amarel wouldn't agree that murder is objectively wrong.
3- you have recently stated objective beauty exists, but in the context it was used in then it would entail subjectivity. No one thing can be objectively beautiful.
Beautiful- pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.
Objective:
1: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
2: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Now, please do let me know if 1, 2, or 3 is illusory as I will be happy to site these debates.
you have openly stated murder is objectively wrong while asserting it as fact given the definition then kind of turned away once you began to realize that it more of a philosophical argument rather than a semantic one- you did this once you realized Amarel wouldn't agree that murder is objectively wrong.
You were unable to address the points that Amarel and I made. Can you say why I am wrong to say it is objective while rebuking the points for why I say it is objective? No. Because you don't care about anyone else's argument. For me whether morality has an objective element or not is very interested. I am not sure if there is an objective element or not but I have stated my reasons why I think there is. For you it is subjective and you aren't willing to debate it. Ask yourself.. Would you have responded with different arguments if Armarel or I had have argued with different points? No. Because you don't debate. You just have one point and say it over and over. This point is: "it is subjective and you are stupid". But why do I bother saying this. Your ego prevents you from recognising your own flaws. I'm just another stupid person that you are better than.
Umm... before I address your questionable disputation: If I recall, your argument for objective morality was that it is objectively wrong because everyone believes that it is... When I, regretfully, entertained this statement and responded with "I don't believe that it is wrong", you then responded with a statement implying that I am just irrational- how is this reasonable substantiation in a position for objective morality? "Because everyone believes so"?
This is why I blame your intellect. For even if you have no background in philosophy you should obviously know this is a complete ands utter fallacy.
---
My stance on morality is not "because it is just subjective". I even gave a plausible position to which you responded to. So now you just openly misrepresent my position by claiming that my position on morality is that it is subjective because it "just is"? Another fallacy.
---
Thirdly, you position for objective morality was not that you believe it has an objective element. All you just did was reiterate Ameral's position to make yourself seem more knowledgeable about the subject. Ameral didn't even agree with your position which is why you quickly changed it. And you keep bringing [Ameral's] name up because he is in disagreement with me and is your only intellectual guidance on the matter.
---
Your ego prevents you from recognising your own flaws.
Um, I'm sure that "not debating" wouldn't fit the criteria of a "flaw". Perhaps not debating well would, but that would be the criterion in which would fit you best.
---
I'm just another stupid person that you are better than.
I wouldn't say better, more like intellectually superior. But I guess its easy being so when my adversary's intellectuality is nonexistent.
. When I, regretfully, entertained this statement and responded with "I don't believe that it is wrong", you then responded with a statement implying that I am just irrational- how is this reasonable substantiation in a position for objective morality? "Because everyone believes so"?
You are unable to explain why it is a fallacy. It is a fallacy because it is a fallacy because I know these things and you are stupid. As usual this is your argument. If a child is raised in any environment in the world it will recognise unjustified murder as immoral. The popular opinion fallacy refers to assertions made about the opinion of one society. If we are talking about millions of societies throughout time that have no contact what so ever with each other observing the same thing in different parts of the world then the fallacy doesn't apply.
My stance on morality is not "because it is just subjective". I even gave a plausible position to which you responded to.
Rather than summarising your points you just wrote this. This is because I am right and all your arguments are based on your usual thing of saying that the opposition is stupid and of course it is subjective because [quote definition of subjective in dictionary and say it a few different ways].
Thirdly, you position for objective morality was not that you believe it has an objective element.
You go from acting like ProlifeLib to FromWithin now. Great job on telling me what I think. I have been debating this for years though. Without morality being objective then the concept of law becomes very trivial. It was always important to me that it was objective. You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
Um, I'm sure that "not debating" wouldn't fit the criteria of a "flaw". Perhaps not debating well would, but that would be the criterion in which would fit you best
I said you fail you recognise your own flaws and you come back by saying this. Pretty much proved my point there yanky doodle.
I wouldn't say better, more like intellectually superior. But I guess its easy being so when my adversary's intellectuality is nonexistent.
You keep repeating this type of thing. I am not insecure about my intelligence at all. I am not a genius but my intelligence is enough for me to do what I want to do in life. If I am intelligent enough to study at university but yet not intelligent enough to understand your points.. You think it is because your points are just too complex for me? Seriously?
You are unable to explain why it is a fallacy. It is a fallacy because it is a fallacy because I know these things and you are stupid. As usual this is your argument.
Why must you blatantly ignore my arguments just to make your position seem more plausible? I clearly stated in that debate that you fallacy was appeal to popularit; here's an elaboration:
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentumadpopulum
Rather than summarising your points you just wrote this. This is because I am right and all your arguments are based on your usual thing of saying that the opposition is stupid and of course it is subjective because [quote definition of subjective in dictionary and say it a few different ways].
This isn't about morality, this is about you falsely accusing me of not giving an argument that illustrates how it is subjective. Even Ameral will admit to this, though he still wouldn't agree with my points.
You go from acting like ProlifeLib to FromWithin now. Great job on telling me what I think. I have been debating this for years though. Without morality being objective then the concept of law becomes very trivial. It was always important to me that it was objective. You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
I don't even need to name users on this site as you are uniquely your own foolish character. You only dispute personal information that can never be proven false (my money, my school, the initial dispute in this debate currently). You also just attack my condition by invoking more fallacies "because of my dyslexia I cant argue topics involving semantics" "because of my dyslexia you're right about a word and I am wrong" when clearly you don't even know simple English. You have openly illustrated you lack of knowledge of simple grammar- you wont refuse this because you know that it is true you claimed syntax and vocabulary have nothing to do with grammar, then you conceded (tacit as it was) once I defined grammar.
You may have also noticed, if you didn't have your head up your arse that is, that my arguments are very different to Ameral's.
It was until you started using his argument that morality has an objective element to it. Believe me I understand how "morality is objective because most thin that it is" vs. "morality has objective aspects to it that most seem to ignore".
I said you fail you recognise your own flaws and you come back by saying this. Pretty much proved my point there yanky doodle.
So what's my flaws that go unrecognized, Atrag?
You keep repeating this type of thing. I am not insecure about my intelligence at all. I am not a genius but my intelligence is enough for me to do what I want to do in life. If I am intelligent enough to study at university but yet not intelligent enough to understand your points.. You think it is because your points are just too complex for me? Seriously?
Very much so, look at the history of debates that you have been in. None of them required any intellectual effort at all. Furthermore, as I previously stated, you don't even understands other's (such as Ameral) points as well. Most times you engage in intellectual discourse you eventually opt out once it becomes to complicated. You then resort to personal measures- you cannot deny this, really.
---
As a side: I never say that someone is stupid during debates other than you and SitaraMusic- this is because when I say something as simple as my syntax was a little off because I have grammar issues, and you respond with, "HAHAHAHAH SYNTAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMMAR HAHAHAH," it's kind of hard for me not think of you otherwise.
Why must you blatantly ignore my arguments just to make your position seem more plausible? I clearly stated in that debate that you fallacy was appeal to popularit; here's an elaboratio
You have given be a dictionary definition assuming I don't understand. I do understand. I have told you why the fallacy doesn't apply to my example. You are unable or unwilling to argue this point. Fine. But don't think that quoting the dictionary is sufficient.
This isn't about morality, this is about you falsely accusing me of not giving an argument that illustrates how it is subjective. Even Ameral will admit to this, though he still wouldn't agree with my points.
Erm no. He resorted to questioning whether you actually understood what subjective and objective is too. The example with you saying number is subjective kind of proves both our suspicions right.
morality is objective because most thin that it is"
Pues fatal gringillo. You haven't understand at all. I said every single human being of sound mind in every single society that ever existed. This is your flaw. You fail to understand other peoples point of view because you're too busy jerking yourself off about how superior you are. As a result you look like an idiot most of the time.
Very much so, look at the history of debates that you have been in.
You're mistaken.
, "HAHAHAHAH SYNTAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMMAR HAHAHAH
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
You have given be a dictionary definition assuming I don't understand. I do understand. I have told you why the fallacy doesn't apply to my example. You are unable or unwilling to argue this point. Fine. But don't think that quoting the dictionary is sufficient.
Your reason as to why your position is not a fallacy: "If a child is raised in any environment in the world it will recognise unjustified murder as immoral. The popular opinion fallacy refers to assertions made about the opinion of one society."
#1: This is completely wrong; argumentum ad populum does not state this applies to one society. It is very simple: "If many believe so, it is so".
#2: Not all children will recognize unjustified murder as 'immoral'- some children will commit unjustified murders themselves.
#3: The justification alone is subjective, children being raised by ISIS, for example, will believe they are justified in killing off innocent people- I am sure you may think acts such as this aren't, to your liking, justified, but it is to them.
#4: Thank you finally for illustrating how you cannot comprehend intellectual positions (and even definitions). This shows your incompetence in regards to morality and even justification. This will be the last argument about the subject matter that I will engage in.
Erm no. He resorted to questioning whether you actually understood what subjective and objective is too. The example with you saying number is subjective kind of proves both our suspicions right.
No, he questioned whether or not I understood his position, he very well knows that I know the distinction of the two, his problem was that I only pointed out the subjective elements and would attain to the objective ones, mainly because I couldn't quite understand his position as the more he substantiated it, the more subjective it seemed.
I never stated a number was subjective, I stated it wasn't physical- and even Daver knew what I meant and tried to explain to you but apparently your ego won't allow you to be wrong.
You haven't understand at all. I said every single human being of sound mind in every single society that ever existed.
You sure? Please point this out. Let's assume you did, what's the criteria for a sound mind? And this is your presupposition, I can easily say that only unsound people think morality is objective- this is akin to saying "all religious people are idiots". And this is still FALSE. You're saying that only unsound minded people are the only ones who think morality is subjective... Please tell me more. As you are finally letting out your incomprehension of the subject matter.
As a result you look like an idiot most of the time.
And just what are you doing right now, Atrag?
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
No? You don't remember randomly jumping in a debate and pointing out how I used "inquisition/inquiry" wrong? Then I explained I had a problem with (spelling) words and syntactic structuring, basically my grammar- to which you responded with "HAHAHAH SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMAR HAHAHA". Then I posted the definition of grammar and you shut up.
You created the account "color" just to upvote yourself. I thought you said upvoting and downvoting didn't interest you hahaha haha. Pathetic little ego maniac.
#1: This is completely wrong; argumentum ad populum does not state this applies to one society. It is very simple: "If many believe so, it is so".
Yes but why is that a fallacy?? Have you stopped to ask why? Read this:
here is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers."
I have included the whole world both past and present in my statement. It is not a small sample and it is 99.99% of human beings. It doesn't fit the fallacy.
ot all children will recognize unjustified murder as 'immoral'- some children will commit unjustified murders themselves.
They have a justification for it.
The justification alone is subjective,
No shit. That is the subjective element.
You're saying that only unsound minded people are the only ones who think morality is subjective
God you still didn't understand what I said. Wtf can I do? I am saying that only people who are of an unsound mind can find unjustified killing to be moral. This is due to lack of perception the inhibits the appreciation of the objectively wrong nature of the act.
I never stated a number was subjective, I stated it wasn't physical- and even Daver knew what I meant and tried to explain to you but apparently your ego won't allow you to be wrong.
You dishonest prick. Do I really have to go back and quote you? You are saying my point of contentious was that I thought the concept of number was physical and that was the point I was arguing? You live in lala land.
And just what are you doing right now, Atrag? .
Dunno. My comments tend to get up votes without me having to use other accounts. Yeah yeah yeah upvotes don't matter. You just create multiple accounts, despite the owner of the site telling you not to, and upvote just because you have spare time between wanking off over a mirror.
You created the account "color" just to upvote yourself. I thought you said upvoting and downvoting didn't interest you hahaha haha. Pathetic little ego maniac.
Wow, Atrag... I would really love to know how you came to this conclusion.
Yes but why is that a fallacy?? Have you stopped to ask why?
What you said was a fallacy... period. Who cares why? You claimed because most people see X as being equal to Y then therefore X is equal to Y.
I have included the whole world both past and present in my statement. It is not a small sample and it is 99.99% of human beings. It doesn't fit the fallacy.
You spoke of the individuals who see unjustified murder as being wrong in the present tense. You must not try and nitpick the description just so you ease your way out of the fallacy.
Furthermore, you stated that it wasn't a fallacy because this fallacy only applies to one society, please highlight where, in that statement, it says the reason for why what you said isn't a fallacy is "because appeal to popularity applies to one society".
They have a justification for it.
According to whom? You? You are not an authority, Atrag. To say all children who commit unjustified killing have justification for so is yet another fallacy.
No shit. That is the subjective element.
...
God you still didn't understand what I said. Wtf can I do? I am saying that only people who are of an unsound mind can find unjustified killing to be moral. This is due to lack of perception the inhibits the appreciation of the objectively wrong nature of the act.
Yeahh I think were done here, you still don't understand. If there are no objective morals (assuming) then there is no aspect to appreciate. And you openly stated that only sound minded people see unjustified murder as being objectively wrong. If you cant see why this is entirely fallacious then, please, just don't respond.
You dishonest prick. Do I really have to go back and quote you? You are saying my point of contentious was that I thought the concept of number was physical and that was the point I was arguing? You live in lala land.
Here I'll do it for you: "Us moral subjectivist oppose objective morality because there's no plausible evidence to suggest that morality can be anything but subjective (unless you're religious of course). It's like trying to find a physical number one, or letter S." - HarvardGrad
Now tell me, where did I say "S" was subjective, Atrag? And even still, the concept of S is subjective depending on the context. Notwithstanding, I used that as an analogy to illustrate why objectivity in regards to moral issues cannot be justly evaluated because it has not 'real' properties, it is entirely dependent upon perception (same as the letter "S").
Woops...
Dunno. My comments tend to get up votes without me having to use other accounts. Yeah yeah yeah upvotes don't matter. You just create multiple accounts, despite the owner of the site telling you not to, and upvote just because you have spare time between wanking off over a mirror.
Again, I don't up-vote myself- and I can rightfully say that your ego induces you to frantically check online users when you see that I have received up-votes. If up-votes don't matter then why keep mentioning it? The only ones up-voting you are Cartman or someone of that sort. They are just like you, pseudointellectuals. This is why I said don't let them fool you.
And yet another implied fallacy. There are thousands following a guy claiming to be Jesus, this doesn't mean "oh, there must be something spiritual about this guy then".
---
You keep repeating this. As you get more and more desperate you do so more frequently. With this post you mentioned this grammar thing three times. Waw. I can't even remember what you were talking about.
No? You don't remember randomly jumping in a debate and pointing out how I used "inquisition/inquiry" wrong? Then I explained I had a problem with (spelling) words and syntactic structuring, basically my grammar- to which you responded with "HAHAHAH SYNTAX AND VOCABULARY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAMAR HAHAHA". Then I posted the definition of grammar and you shut up.
Ill take you irresponsiveness as a tacit concession.
You spoke of the individuals who see unjustified murder as being wrong in the present tense
I clearly said anyone in any society throughout time.
Furthermore, you stated that it wasn't a fallacy because this fallacy only applies to one society, please highlight where, in that statement, where you reason for why what you said isn't a fallacy is "because appeal to popularity applies to one society"
It doesn't but it is implied as the point is that the fallacy is due to a shared belief. Not coincdences between societies that have never interacted.
According to whom? You? You are not an authority, Atrag. To say all children who commit unjustified killing have justification for so is yet another fallacy
Firstly, children are special cases because they have not yet the maturity to appreciate the nature of some acts. Secondly, they can't justify it then they either don't do or they do it and see it as wrong. Feel free to give me an example in which I would be wrong.
Now tell me, where did I say "S" was subjective, Atrag?
What at that got to do with number? Scroll down or ctrl f on "concept of number". You will find where you said it was subjective. I can't be arsed.
gain, I don't up-vote myself- and I can rightfully say that your ego induces you to frantically check online users when you see that I have received up-votes
No. I checked it before. You post a reply. Within two minutes "color" comes online. Goes to this debate. Is the only one viewing this debate. You receive an upvote. Color goes offline without viewing any other debates. Everything you type is so incredibly dishonest. Why don't you just be sincere. Clearly you do care about upvote.
nd yet another implied fallacy. There are thousands following a guy claiming to be Jesus, this doesn't mean "oh, there must be something spiritual about this guy then"
If the entire world for centuries so the letters Jesús is alive in the sky... And believed it says Jesús is alive... But yet there was no other evidence other than these billions of people's personal accounts on what they believe.. I guess you would say that anything concluded from this belief is a fallacy.
pseudointellectuals
LOL this is the word for you. Thank you so much for bringing to mind. I have seen you type about zoology. Even on your own subject you have no clue whatsoever. "humans are the only self destructive species" LOL
This illustration does not imply non-coincidence. Basically this wasn't just a societal belief.
Nevertheless it is still fallacious to invoke global coincidences as a validation for objective matters. Different nonrelated (coincidental) societies conjured up some sort of religion, does that mean it somehow points to objectivity?
What at that got to do with number? Scroll down or ctrl f on "concept of number". You will find where you said it was subjective. I can't be arsed.
I love how you skipped pass where I said "its like a number, or the letter "s".
No. I checked it before. You post a reply. Within two minutes "color" comes online. Goes to this debate. Is the only one viewing this debate. You receive an upvote. Color goes offline without viewing any other debates. Everything you type is so incredibly dishonest. Why don't you just be sincere. Clearly you do care about upvote.
And this is somehow your proof that it must be me? Them viewing a debate... Okay.
As an aside: There is no need to log off so I can get on another account. I can just log while still on both accounts as I sometimes do with Harvard and this account.
If the entire world for centuries so the letters Jesús is alive in the sky... And believed it says Jesús is alive... But yet there was no other evidence other than these billions of people's personal accounts on what they believe.. I guess you would say that anything concluded from this belief is a fallacy.
And where's this evidence for objective morality? Do you know?
LOL this is the word for you. Thank you so much for bringing to mind. I have seen you type about zoology. Even on your own subject you have no clue whatsoever. "humans are the only self destructive species" LOL
Another illustration as to how you never understand my points. Please elaborate on what I meant by this since you understand it enough to conclude that it is absurd.
I see you don't respond when you are not receiving up-votes huh? You figure that since no one is up-voting, then no one must be following, and since no one is following then therefore you fell disinclined to respond (since no one will see it).
This isn't about morality, this is about you falsely accusing me of not giving an argument that illustrates how it is subjective. Even Ameral will admit to this, though he still wouldn't agree with my points
On more than one occasion he said:
All of your responses, including this one, have been negations without explanation. This is partly why I assert that you fail to understand my position. The other reason is because you used to argue against the notion that morality is even a code of conduct, which implies that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.
The Harvard fat head made yet another whoopsy didn't he. :(
Atrag, I clearly stated that he said this (me not understanding his position); though he was wrong about me arguing that morality isn't a code of conduct, I argued his illustration as to how it is a code of conduct (in an objective sense) was erroneous. He put it in such a way that would entail objectivity, but of course if this were true there would be nothing to dispute now would it?
It's just funny how you ignore my points when they accurately express your false and/or contradictory statements, or unless they are just too complicated for your understanding.
But here you are, once again, trying to dispute parts of a statement that are essential to the debate topic. Funny you talk about my impulsiveness regarding my ego yet... anytime you see me post an argument you respond with intentional nonsense? Your line of reasoning suggests that your ego cannot overlook my ego...
Regardless of your, ironically, self-reflexive statement I just wanted to note that, regardless of what anyone thinks, you know you cannot intellectually persist in an argument with me which is why you resort to "personal" matters in order to deter the argument (e.g. you responding to a personal aspect of my statement with a ":/"). You do this because you can point out all day how "unbelievable" my statement, but that's about it... Not once on this site have you invalidated one of my positions- incidentally you have never even understood my positions.
Basically, so long as you know why you can't respond to my arguments regarding your erroneous positions, then that is all that matters; don't let these users obscure reality. You are just the Fool here to make others laugh--3rd grade English teacher in España.
Please provide proof that this source is viable. You claim this is the word of God? Give me a reason to believe that, and then you will be able to use this as a legitimate piece of proof.