Well, I've no interest in that, and God has less. So you'll have to make it up yourself, I guess.
Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Of course there's no interest in bringing it out into the open to see it for what it is. Self-serving glorification is serious business. Without it, platforms crumble.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
That's your assumption...that such a thing exists. Not mine. And I am not your judge, nor, thank God, you mine. It is enough for me, and for you, that we shall both answer for the truth of what and who we are, and as the Bard so famously put it,Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:57 pmOf course there's no interest in bringing it out into the open to see it for what it is.
"In the corrupted currents of this world
Offense’s gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But ’tis not so above.
There is no shuffling. There the action lies
In his true nature, and we ourselves compelled,
Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,
To give in evidence."
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Yet, how many times have you made claims about the holier-than-thou characteristics of theists vs. atheists? And now you say, it's not for you to judge, but for your God to judge. So, are YOU your god in drag (and you don't even realize it)? For surely you have made such judgements many times on this forum, yes?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:24 pmThat's your assumption...that such a thing exists. Not mine. And I am not your judge, nor, thank God, you mine.
See how your argument shifts to continually protect and glorify yourself? Supposedly... you're always taking the high road, and you're always speaking the truth. And when that is in question, you whip out the god card. That's why you do not offer proof of your claims -- rather, you insist that people prove "otherwise". Are YOU able to prove "otherwise" of fantasies? Insisting that someone do so is the weakest philosophical approach there is.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Go ahead. Point one out. Let's see if you're right.Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:07 pmYet, how many times have you made claims about the holier-than-thou characteristics of theists vs. atheists?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:24 pmThat's your assumption...that such a thing exists. Not mine. And I am not your judge, nor, thank God, you mine.
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Even more simple: Answer the questions right now...
Tell us about the characters of Christians that non-Christians don’t have...and tell us what non-theists do that theists don't.
You know that you have drawn such distinctions.
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:24 pm
That's your assumption...that such a thing exists. Not mine. And I am not your judge, nor, thank God, you mine.
Mannie says his life is too short, and that he doesn't like wasting his time, unless of course, it's all going his way.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
And swallow your false assumption, the one you can't even substantiate? No thanks.
I see you have nothing.
Of course, I knew that. I did not say what you attribute to me...and had I accidentally said something that could be read that way, I'd have corrected your misapprehension gladly. But you've saved me the trouble.
Thanks.
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
So you cannot tell us (affirm) in your own words, right now... that what you actually believe is that theists and atheists are equal in their characters? That neither is more righteous/good/bad than the other? Your answer right now will mean more than disputing anything in the past.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:52 pm had I accidentally said something that could be read that way, I'd have corrected your misapprehension gladly.
It is no secret that...
> You've made claims you cannot back up
> You've made judgements about people in ways that you now claim only your god should do
Instead of acknowledging this when you're asked about it, you insist that I (and others) must prove your lack of truth. Yet, if someone else claims something, you insist that they must prove what they claim. Why are the rules different for you... and why does all of the proving fall on everyone else and not you?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
No, no...no "spin" here. Not gonna play.Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:36 pmSo you cannot tell us (affirm) in your own words, right now...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:52 pm had I accidentally said something that could be read that way, I'd have corrected your misapprehension gladly.
Either quote what you object to, or take your complaint to somebody who believes it.
That wouldn't be me.
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Who do you think you're kidding? That's ALL you do.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23102
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
Re: Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 3
That's a good description of how Jesus became Christ...or how to turn a back ally preacher into a god.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:20 pm There are no rules for such a discussion, no means of arbitrating it, no possibility of actual progress, and no conclusions possible, since the entire thing is merely a fantasy.