EPTOn November 30 2007 10:46 Thegreatbeyond wrote:My logic deos not fail , I don't know everything about the church subject/topic nor was I aware there were churches created to harbor non-christians or people of diffrent faiths, therefore my assumption was perfectly logical.
It makes you close minded at best, if somebody is going to Church and is not a Christian and that would not be part of my reality then I would be interested in why. "Because she is stupid" is not really an answer.
On November 30 2007 10:46 Thegreatbeyond wrote: Also, I'm not a keen fan of religious practices/beliefs, so I do not deviate to learn about these things from my normal time.
They are not interesting for me either, but why do peaple participate in them at all and believe in mambo jumbo is interesting imo.
On November 30 2007 10:46 Thegreatbeyond wrote:Second, the fact that some of you put effort just to humilate and insult me on my burst of arrogance, for your satisfiction, proves that you guys are just as childish and stupid as me when I wrote that post.
People could go whit bandwagon and made fun of girl to fell superior also, worth to consider that no?
On November 30 2007 10:46 Thegreatbeyond wrote:Obviously I get the analogy my good sir. Now returning back, the girl could have used much more better examples then that horrible analogy because there were so many things diffrent in that comparison.
Analogy was to show just one thing, just like dog has for 4 legs does it make everything whit 4 legs a dog. I definitely can't alweys make perfect analogy on spot so common.
On November 30 2007 10:46 Thegreatbeyond wrote:She had the option of choosing a much more pragmatic example, but instead she chose a stupid analogy that would most likely correspond to the idiots in my class to make herself seem rational.
It was just used to get over "you have to be Christian to go to Church" becouse you were talking on that level that time, no?
Anyway it is not about that specific discussion that we don't really know. It just seems to me that you pre assume that somebody is idiot, before you know they reasoning. Anyway only way to really win a debate is to understand reasoning of person that you are talking whit first, then you can "attack" it in logic way. I don't start conversation whit pre assumed goal I don't try to understand reasoning to attack somebody, it is just a consequence of me seeing flaws in it.
