Here is the salient point,...
Ah, the old "lost the argument, so change the subject" trick. < /agent86 >
Since (according to you) it is inopportune to attack someones religion in this forum, according to your rules you should have no response if I tell you my religion commands silence of you and your fellows.
Your sarcasm aside, you still fail to construct a valid logical argument. Your posited religion holds no command over me, nor is it necessary for me to debate it. I simply ignore it.
But seriously, FC, you have put forward that to be allowed into the political arena, one must be able to logically defend the basic premise of their faith. That is something that no one can do; faith is, by definition, a belief held beyond objective proof. The only way religion can be debated at all is if both parties agree on some axiom beyond the debate, such as the existence of the Divine.
If you are going to require such a standard for political participation, it is only right that you pass the same test. Therefore, what is the basic premise of your religion?
(and by the way, if big words are too hard, maybe you could use a dictionary)
It isn't the words that were hard, it's the poor syntax in which they were used.
“I believe your counting of the angels on the head of a pin has broached a record.
Here is the salient point,...”
[Ah, the old “lost the argument, so change the subject” trick. < /agent86 >]
Actually, the only argument you have is “liar, Strawman”, repeated tediously but which I have yet to see convincingly shown. And in turn you conveniently ignored the documentable fact that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, secessionist tinpot general/adulterer/ bank fraud/ con artist/crystal gazer. Guess you already lost that argument, so you didn’t even try to refute it.
Moreover, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of my religion, FastCoyoteism, which I guarantee you is no more bizarre in it’s tenets than Mormonism. FastCoyote’s Reformed Reformed Mormonism provides the backbone of revelations from which I pontificate on my God-Planet Earth.
“Since (according to you) it is inopportune to attack someones religion in this forum though it be at the heart of political mores, using your rules you should have no response if I tell you my religion commands silence of you and your fellows.”
[Your sarcasm aside,]
It’s not sarcasm. I believe FastCoyoteism is ten times as correct as Mormonism. Since you’ve chosen to ignore my GodCommand that you not address my religion in an insulting or attacking way (a command no more bizarre than deifying Joseph Smith and following his path), I must say that you have violated your rules against speaking about religion “in this forum”. Hypocrite.
“you still fail to construct a valid logical argument. Your posited religion holds no command over me, nor is it necessary for me to debate it. I simply ignore it.”
Dear God (Me), you ignore and insult the religion of a Presidential Candidate (Me), who has only come here to speak of political issues (Me and how You can Serve Me!). You ignore my religion, as if what I posited - that only atheists would be allowed here if we followed your rules - were somehow untrue. Then you go and reject my religion in a quite atheistic fashion. Thank God (Me) you are sooo smart, or I’d think your logic quite confused.
“But seriously, FC, you have put forward that to be allowed into the political arena, one must be able to logically defend the basic premise of their faith. That is something that no one can do; faith is, by definition, a belief held beyond objective proof. The only way religion can be debated at all is if both parties agree on some axiom beyond the debate, such as the existence of the Divine.”
How right you are, one cannot defend the logical basis of ANY religion. Therefore, since you disagree with me, you cannot debate the logic of my GodHood, FastCoyoteism, else you would be attacking religious beliefs which are (as you state) beyond objective proof! I command you to bow down and kiss my objective bunions (in a religious way) because your subjective belief cannot disprove my religious belief that my bunions are holy religious artifacts!
“If you are going to require such a standard for political participation, it is only right that you pass the same test. Therefore, what is the basic premise of your religion?”
That you worship me in every way and vote for me for President! Then, since religion (by your own statements) is totally subjective, do not assail my religion with nasty logic trying to disprove it and disrupt my presidential aspirations! ! ! A central tenet of my religion is that I can only rise to greater Godhood by becoming President of all those deficient enough of character to believe religion has no place in political discourse. So, remember, vote FastCoyote for President, it is a religious imperative, and you wouldn’t want to insult logic by bringing religion into a political discussion!
“(and by the way, if big words are too hard, maybe you could use a dictionary)”
[It isn’t the words that were hard, it’s the poor syntax in which they were used.]
I’m soooo hurt that the grammar cop on the beat has taken umbrage (i.e., cried like a little girl) to my word selection. Where is the grammar moderator when you need one?