Just did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The fact that I just dogmatically asserted something and did not devise an argument of logic and evidence shows that dogmatically asserting something does not prove anything, thus the point is proven.

 

(So much space was given between the argument and the explanation of the argument so people can realize the point I made without me making that point to you...but too late.)

so are we just re-using an old lame topic? Awesome. Go outside and play.

Note: The fact that I just dogmatically asserted something and did not devise an argument of logic and evidence shows that dogmatically asserting something does not prove anything, thus the point is proven.

 

(So much space was given between the argument and the explanation of the argument so people can realize the point I made without me making that point to you...but too late.)

^^^^ Then what is all that? ^^^^

 

Ruined your own point by explaining your stance.

I wish I had more faith in people's mental abilities, but I don't.

 

It is a simple argument. Furman is a simple person.

BURN

 

 

I think....

Looks like someone just got home from their Intro to Philosophy & Logic class.

but i didn't

he's just naturally genius like that.

he's just naturally genius like that.

there's a difference between being smart and just willingly being stupid.

i would assume so.

 

Thank you Captain Obvious for that earth-shattering statement. There I was assuming that willingly being stupid was synonymous with being smart.

You're so shallow, you do not even fully understand what I even said.

 

You don't have to be smart to decide to hold opinions only based upon evidence, but you can be smart inherently and willingly stupid to assume beliefs base upon faith.

 

Of course, the reason I had to spell this out in the first post was for people like you.

once again, thank you captain obvious for telling us that willingly being stupid is different than being smart.

thank you for proving my point. you live by example.

 

also, thank you for keeping me occupied at work. I sincerely hope I'm wasting moments in your precious life.

waste of space on this board, was this needless thread.

The genius of the argument is that the lack of substance after a dogmatic assertion proves a point without getting into a long drawn argument that bores the simple minded. Something so simple proved so much and it shows how the methods people hold when it concerns acquiring belief can be totally wrong.

 

You don't have to be smart to realize this, it is terribly simple and proven by the title alone. When faith is such a gigantic element in this society, the issue of dogma is worth discussing.

 

Now you can choose not to discuss it, that is your right. However, acting like an idiot doesn't prove that much either Furman.

last word

.

I'm smarter than you.

Really Furman why do you give this guy the attention he looks like he desperately needs and wants.

 

Just let him rot in his own thoughts and dont respond to him.