I'm going to leave the sticky discussion between the two of you because unless something changes you get to face the same status the other discussions faced. Also, I should have pointed out that my record shows I don't believe in open-ended questions (here you have three options or implied "none of the above" or "write-in"). A community question should be binary, yes-no, such as current mod team versus changes, because otherwise results among three or more options can be gamed without indicating accurate consensus. The last question I posed had more votes in favor of new mod team (unnamed) than then-current inactive mod team, but was not heavily attended. So far yours is even less attended. This forum is rather like herding cats and resists changes to status quo. That's why admin took the steps it did.
When you learn to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can talk more about my supporting your bids.
I am bound by logic. I tested both the Bible and the young earth by logic and found them the inference to the best explanation. I'd love you to start any logic-based post in c/Atheist, where such discussion is usually done, if you want to see who is most logical.
Where would you like me to demonstrate that I know how to use logic? What standards would prove to you that I know? You might be using illogic to say you don't have to propose standards and then when I propose standards you can just say they're illogical: the same trap you say Christians use on you. So your accepting the challenge gives you a duty to define what terms you'd accept.
Meanwhile, I can start by pointing out a couple basics. (1) Either nothing exists or something exists. Can we agree that something exists as an axiom? (2) We can name the sum of all that exists something like All-That-Exists (or maybe "Yahweh" for short). Can we agree on a name for all that exists that would be neutral enough for us to start attributing characteristics to it? (3) Obviously by observation we can define Thing as any subset of All-That-Exists; for instance you and I are Things. So logically all Things except the Thing called All-That-Exists are not All-That-Exists. Do you follow?
So maybe we really are both interested in speaking logically but we just distrust each other. It's something to work on, isn't it?
I'm going to leave the sticky discussion between the two of you because unless something changes you get to face the same status the other discussions faced. Also, I should have pointed out that my record shows I don't believe in open-ended questions (here you have three options or implied "none of the above" or "write-in"). A community question should be binary, yes-no, such as current mod team versus changes, because otherwise results among three or more options can be gamed without indicating accurate consensus. The last question I posed had more votes in favor of new mod team (unnamed) than then-current inactive mod team, but was not heavily attended. So far yours is even less attended. This forum is rather like herding cats and resists changes to status quo. That's why admin took the steps it did.
When you learn to use logic the way others do instead of using it imbalancedly to direct results to what you already believe, then we can talk more about my supporting your bids.
I am bound by logic. I tested both the Bible and the young earth by logic and found them the inference to the best explanation. I'd love you to start any logic-based post in c/Atheist, where such discussion is usually done, if you want to see who is most logical.
Where would you like me to demonstrate that I know how to use logic? What standards would prove to you that I know? You might be using illogic to say you don't have to propose standards and then when I propose standards you can just say they're illogical: the same trap you say Christians use on you. So your accepting the challenge gives you a duty to define what terms you'd accept.
Meanwhile, I can start by pointing out a couple basics. (1) Either nothing exists or something exists. Can we agree that something exists as an axiom? (2) We can name the sum of all that exists something like All-That-Exists (or maybe "Yahweh" for short). Can we agree on a name for all that exists that would be neutral enough for us to start attributing characteristics to it? (3) Obviously by observation we can define Thing as any subset of All-That-Exists; for instance you and I are Things. So logically all Things except the Thing called All-That-Exists are not All-That-Exists. Do you follow?
So maybe we really are both interested in speaking logically but we just distrust each other. It's something to work on, isn't it?