Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AncientGlory" data-source="post: 10867680" data-attributes="member: 262433">Allright lets make few things clear first.You made a claim suggesting that I implied Y2K's belief in GOD implies he has an obligation to believe in GOD. To which I said, no and in fact it is not relevant to the point I was making. To which you took the liberty to argue that it indeed is relevant.I'm discussing this focusing on that point. If you want to discuss, whether Y2K's comments show hypocrisy or not, fine we can do so. But lets settle the other thing first.Your extraction of my argument is not correct. I suggest you to re-read my comments. I did not make such argument. I said it is indeed extraordinary for him to believe one thing and not another. I was not making any argument here at all. But yes there was a point to my claim, which you obviously missed and assumed that I was saying if someone believes in GOD, he has an obligation to believe in 80000 year old humans.Here are the two comments I pointed at y2K.I still fail to see where I made the argument that would say "if you believe in one extraordinary thing you have an obligation to believe in the other."I said it is quite remarkable, or extraordinary or laughable(To me) that you believe in one extraordinary thing and question others who believe another extraordinary thing. So? Did I say otherwise?So? Did I say you or anyone else could not? Your point????So? Did I say otherwise? No it is not. I'm rationally justified to have my faith on X. Even though I base the belief only on faith, there are reasons that I see in my subjective view that will rationally justify my faith to believe in X. And I can't believe Y based on faith because my faith to believe Y cannot be justified by me. This is not opportunistic inconsistency. I cannot agree, you cannot limit an explanation of an act to mere a definition like that. No such definitions are mutually exclusive. They have common ground. I would say tu quoque is a subset of hypocrisy. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque</a>I'm not making such argument. My argument is different. I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.</blockquote>

Verification: Dahaya deken beduwama keeyada?

Top Bottom