Questions to Christians

[Immanuel Can]

And there is is. Can't even take a mild compliment graciously,...

I saw the mild compliment. I also saw the gross slander in the previous message; in in comparison, it was a very small gesture of placation. Therefore, I remained unimpressed.

I was brought up to be a critical thinker.

Really? Well, judging by your posts, I would need to find some evidence of that, were I to believe it.

Hardly slander when it's true. You are a vain, disingenuous, pompous wanker. That's just stating a fact.

Yes, yes, yes...the excuse of everybody who behaves badly is to double down and say, "Well, it's just the truth."

Who are you to me?

You see, that's the question you should have begun with..."What do I really know about this person?" And the answer, as we both know, is "Nothing, really." I'm nobody to you, and you know nothing about me. We've never met, never seen one another, never had a single face-to-face, know nothing of each other's lives...and yet you feel free to pronounce on the relationship between what I say and what I actually believe?

Well, you can't expect to be taken seriously, obviously. Usually, when somebody makes confident statements about another person's character, it is also expected that they know them...at least a bit. You're well short of that.

[Immanuel Can]

Calling a habitual liar a liar is 'abuse'.

Prove you have reason to know I'm a "habitual liar."

[accelafine]

You do it, so you must know. I don't have to prove squat. This isn't a courtroom. Why don't you ask all the other posters who have called you out for your dishonesty (which would be practically everyone on here)? The clutch of religious nuts who have infiltrated this site are about the only exceptions. Y'all stick together like a turd sausage.
And why would seeing you in the flesh be any different from seeing what you write on here? If anything this tells me more than actually meeting you would. I'm sure your outer shell is quite mudance and nondescript.

[Immanuel Can]

I asked: "Prove you have reasons to know I'm a 'habitual liar.'"

You do it, so you must know. I don't have to prove squat. This isn't a courtroom.

There it is! You've got nothing. The usual, then.

Here's the truth: you're squandering your abilities, such as you have. You waste your time on abusive rhetoric, instead of dealing with the substance of people's ideas. It's actually a testament to the extreme level of tolerance of the moderators at PN that you're still here. Apparently, they don't require much by way of basic civility in order to allow a person to continue. But I've found very little meat in your sandwich. Not none. But very little.

It's a shame. You could be better. But you choose not to be. And nobody can make a better choice for you, of course.

[accelafine]

The master has spoken. I'm honoured Do you really think I am going to spend my time poring over every bit of excrement you have ever written on here and what exactly would that 'prove' anyway? People know when someone is being disingenous and dishonest. Cherry-picked, incomplete 'quotes'. Misquotes. Endless claims of having 'answered previously' (a favourite of your little caveman buddy) when you have done nothing of the sort....ra ra ra it's just energy draining and pointless. 'Psychic vampirism' at its worst. I can't even imagine what you get out of it or what you think you are 'achieving'.
In case you hadn't noticed I hardly ever engage with you. People who resort to lies in an argument are just a boring energy drain.

[promethean75]

"But I've found very little meat in your sandwich. Not none. But very little."

I said the same thing to a manager today after unwrapping my beef 'n cheddar sandwich at Arby's.

[Dubious]

I asked: "Prove you have reasons to know I'm a 'habitual liar.'"

Reasons are neither required nor necessary since the fact that you are a habitual liar and distortionist par excellence has been overwhelmingly demonstrated in almost ALL of your posts...of which you've also been accused by many. But like the true theist you are, you will persist! Who do you think you're fooling with your holier-than-thou self-representation, which amounts to nothing more than the most abject form of hypocrisy.

If there's ONE word which describes you completely, it's hypocrite from A to Z; in more biblical terms, from Alpha to Omega. In you, that consummation has rendered itself to perfection.

[Immanuel Can]

I asked: "Prove you have reasons to know I'm a 'habitual liar.'"

Reasons are neither required nor necessary...

For those who have none, like you, they're positively toxic, in fact.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really think I am going to spend my time poring over every bit...

No. I knew you wouldn't bother. You've got nothing, and would find nothing. But it would be an errand worthy of you.

[accelafine]

Just proving my point

[Immanuel Can]

"But I've found very little meat in your sandwich. Not none. But very little."

I said the same thing to a manager today after unwrapping my beef 'n cheddar sandwich at Arby's.

The wretches have no respect for philosophy...or economics...or gastronomy.

[Dubious]

I asked: "Prove you have reasons to know I'm a 'habitual liar.'"

Reasons are neither required nor necessary...

For those who have none, like you, they're positively toxic, in fact.

In case you didn't get the message, though I'm sure you did, reasons are neither required nor necessary because you've already supplied the reasons yourself in almost all of your posts in proving you to be a consummate hypocrite and liar which you have already long been infamous for on this site...and not only in matters of religion. It seems you will continue to be one until the day you croak. If entering heaven depends on the kind of virtues you possess, you will certainly have it made.

[Fairy]

You base people’s characters on what they have written or spoken.

Show that I have made any statement about anybody's character.

Ok I will, here's 1 >

accelafine said to IC >

accelafine said:
I was brought up to be a critical thinker.

To which IC responded with...

Really? Well, judging by your posts, I would need to find some evidence of that, were I to believe it.

That's 1 show.
You basically accused accelafine of having no sense of critical thinking, even though she had told you that critical thinking was her 'forte'
So you chose to doubt her 'forte' without any evidence whatsoever, except based on what she writes or speaks about. You literally based her character on your own self-serving biased belief. That's a poor and weak philosophical strategy.

Moving on...



Then there is another show, that's 2, where you judged Harbal as someone you revered and held in high esteem because of the way he was able to engage in dialog with you personally. Even though H gleans most of his philosophical information from ChatGPT. Yes, you see, you are actually talking to ChatGPT, not Harbal...LOL

I've actually watched H typing away to ChatGPT asking for answers to his philosophical questions. It seems H has very little original philosophical ideas stored away in his own noggin, and you revere and hold him in high esteem for his unoriginality, all the while completely disregarding and out-right dismissing other posters based on what they have written or spoken, as if you only prefer to pick out the ripest cherry in the bunch, that you deemed more important to you personally by self bias taste and preference.

I cannot find the post where you definitely wrote your character assessment of H ...It's somewhere on this forum, but I can definitely vouch for the fact that you did indeed make that judgment call of his character, because I still hold it in memory.

You made that character assessment of H based only on what you want to believe about him, rather than what he actually is. He's a gossip, he spoke negatively about you, to me, constantly, every time your name cropped up in our personal philosophical conversations. I'm just making you aware that there are always two sides to peoples characters and personalities. And it seems people only prefer one side of someone's character, namely the side that they want to believe is there, completely ignoring the other side. But I guess, that's just human nature, they only show the side of themselves they want others to see, for reasons that they self-servingly want to be liked and held in high esteem and be revered. But that is always showing a false representational image of themselves, and not a true and real representational image.


As for consulting ChatGPT, as with Google or any other informational search engine, including holy books, and any book, there is not one single idea that is original to be found anywhere. All there is to be found, is nothing new under the sun, stuff that we have mostly heard before, and we go on to repeat it to ourself and others, claiming it as our own knowledge, which it is...It's not that uncommon for humans to indulge in plagiarism, we're all guilty of parroting our own knowledge, the only information that is available to us, since we created it.

[Fairy]

"Did Jesus Christ commit suicide?"

I heard there's a gospel or book that was either omitted from the King James bible when it was conceived or it was found long after the King James bible was published and wasn't added, that has something about your homeboy jesus conspiring beforehand to have whatshisname crucify him, setting everything up. Like J was pulling a Socrates and making a stylish martyr of himself.

Yes, thanks for that. I've heard of that too, and his why I chose to bring up the idea here.

I'm still waiting for IC the Christians reply to that question, but so far..there's only been silence.

Not surprisingly uncommon though, as IC is renowned for being a serial avoidant when it comes to dealing with the very hard christian questions.

[Fairy]

Another question to the Christians...in response to this biblical quote > 1 Corinthians 15:22

''For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.''

The question is: Who exactly is it that dies?