• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

Well then, in that case it's like I said, in my post back when.

If you're not going to define God yourself, and leave people to define God as they like: well then, there's folks there who actually think God is all of nature, or that God is all of the universe.

(For instance, there's this guy: https://steve-patterson.com/understanding-god-as-nature-or-the-universe/
...And I've seen this sort of thing in New Age books as well, I mean specifically where God is defined as the Universe, or as nature.)

So, if you're working with that kind of a definition of God personally, when then God doesn't have to do anything at all. It already exists, evidently so. You already believe. Everybody already believes, given that definition.


I agree. Hell, all some folks need to believe is the bible itself, but that's boring.

What I was looking for was some crazy answers, and some folks even obliged me. Thank you to those folks.

Other folks tried to be all clever about it, using philosophy and other crap like that, but they were boring too. I have nothing against it, but that didn't make a lot of them any less yawn inducing.


-
 
Last edited:
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.
A.C. Clarke
Any 'proof' would need to counter this possibility too. I'm afraid that I'm not intelligent enough to differentiate.
There's an even bigger problem.

Let's even assume that one can demonstrate that something occurs that is "magical," or "miraculous," and, ultimately has to be an outcome that happened because of a higher power.

How do you know that higher power is God?

Back in the old days on the usenet group alt.atheism, there was a guy there named Wen-King Su, and every once in a while he'd pop in and ask the question that stopped every theist in their tracks: How do you know the being you are calling God is actually God and not a Powerful Deceiver?

The short answer: it cannot be done. Not that "I don't know how to do it" but that it is basically impossible. As soon as you acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural being, you cannot distinguish between truth and lies.

I always think it is funny. Christians are the ones who love to proclaim how "Satan is the Father of Lies," but when it comes to Satan's behavior, they treat him as an honest character. I have always said, if I were Satan and wanted to corrupt the world, the first thing I would do would be to convince everyone I was God so that they follow me. Therefore, I'd do everything I could to make them think I was God. Perform miracles? You bet, including raising people from the dead. Dazzle them with power.
 
There's an even bigger problem.

Let's even assume that one can demonstrate that something occurs that is "magical," or "miraculous," and, ultimately has to be an outcome that happened because of a higher power.

How do you know that higher power is God?

Back in the old days on the usenet group alt.atheism, there was a guy there named Wen-King Su, and every once in a while he'd pop in and ask the question that stopped every theist in their tracks: How do you know the being you are calling God is actually God and not a Powerful Deceiver?

The short answer: it cannot be done. Not that "I don't know how to do it" but that it is basically impossible. As soon as you acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural being, you cannot distinguish between truth and lies.

I always think it is funny. Christians are the ones who love to proclaim how "Satan is the Father of Lies," but when it comes to Satan's behavior, they treat him as an honest character. I have always said, if I were Satan and wanted to corrupt the world, the first thing I would do would be to convince everyone I was God so that they follow me. Therefore, I'd do everything I could to make them think I was God. Perform miracles? You bet, including raising people from the dead. Dazzle them with power.


Now, this is the kind philosophizing that I don't find boring. Thank you, pgwenthold.


-
 
The gnostics believed that the material world was created by the great deceiver and they often associated the deceiver with Yahweh.


Yup, and if life after death is true, wouldn't it be interesting to find out that hell was really heaven and vice versa.


ETA: I believe in life after death for one reason, I can never be proven wrong, although, I'm sure some folks will probably try arguing the point.

As a matter of fact, if god were to bring back everyone that was dead, that would be another way to convince me that she was the real deal.

Of course, it might get a little crowded, but I'm sure trump would probably try to have them all deported anyway, and that alone would be interesting to watch.


-
 
Last edited:
... there are many people out there who believe in god just by reading the bible.
You keep saying this, but is it true? Plenty are brought up believing in god from before they can even read, but how many are not believers but then later read a bible and suddenly find they believe?
 
I agree. Hell, all some folks need to believe is the bible itself, but that's boring.

What I was looking for was some crazy answers, and some folks even obliged me. Thank you to those folks.

Other folks tried to be all clever about it, using philosophy and other crap like that, but they were boring too. I have nothing against it, but that didn't make a lot of them any less yawn inducing.


-

Well okay, if interesting-sounding talk's what you want, and crazy's what you want, I suppose it's crazy enough to suggest that the sky splits open, and a resplendent figure drops down, holding thunderbolts in his massive fist that he throws down, which literally become thunder and boom down, and it starts raining. And does this not just the once, but many times, enough times that people are completely sure this is bona fide lightning and thunder. That should be convincing enough.

For further verisimilitude, and to make the proceedings even more interesting, this God might pick up the hottest woman he can find, and do the deed with her, and leave behind a half-god. That's proof, surely.
 
You keep saying this, but is it true? Plenty are brought up believing in god from before they can even read, but how many are not believers but then later read a bible and suddenly find they believe?


Well ok, but what difference does it make when they started to believe? Some folks seem to believe that everything in the bible is really the word of their god. You should ask them what they think and if that's what actually got them to believe.

As far as myself, I'm just expressing my opinion. Your mileage may vary of course.


-
 
Last edited:
...As a matter of fact, some folks seem to believe that everything in the bible is really the word of their god.
Those people believe that even if they've never read it. They believe it because they were brought up in a culture which tells them it's so. You only need to firmly believe it's the inerrant word of the creator. You don't need to know the fine details, like what it says. You won't be tested on it. Your grandparents could quote great long passages but they didn't have Tiktok to fill the time.
 
Those people believe that even if they've never read it. They believe it because they were brought up in a culture which tells them it's so. You only need to firmly believe it's the inerrant word of the creator. You don't need to know the fine details, like what it says. You won't be tested on it. Your grandparents could quote great long passages but they didn't have Tiktok to fill the time.

I agree, but you should've seen some of the replies I got when I asked why god was considered male in the MSN and fox forums. OMG, most of them quoted the bible as proof. I also learned a lot about the different religions and their views on god as a female.

I've posted this before (I think I posted it here too), but personally, even if he's fictional or delusional, I always thought Jesus was one of the coolest religious folks in history, because he risked his life to save a woman about to be stoned to death.

Most religious folks seem to ignore that part, but they have no problem when it comes to quoting the parts that allows them to hate people.


-
 
Last edited:
Is there any limit to the size of the miracle?

I think re-arranging all the galaxies (or warping space) so that from our perspective they appear as a message in the sky at night.

Something like:

"I'm not dead, I'm very real, but I promised myself that I wouldn't interfere anymore...

... damn it! I'm interfering again!!!"
 
Is there any limit to the size of the miracle?


Nope. Anything that can convince you personally is a legitimate answer in my opinion.

Even if it's something outrageous like all the ants in the world coming to your front door to give you hell for not believing in her.


-
 
There's an even bigger problem.

Let's even assume that one can demonstrate that something occurs that is "magical," or "miraculous," and, ultimately has to be an outcome that happened because of a higher power.

How do you know that higher power is God?

Back in the old days on the usenet group alt.atheism, there was a guy there named Wen-King Su, and every once in a while he'd pop in and ask the question that stopped every theist in their tracks: How do you know the being you are calling God is actually God and not a Powerful Deceiver?

The short answer: it cannot be done. Not that "I don't know how to do it" but that it is basically impossible. As soon as you acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural being, you cannot distinguish between truth and lies.

I always think it is funny. Christians are the ones who love to proclaim how "Satan is the Father of Lies," but when it comes to Satan's behavior, they treat him as an honest character. I have always said, if I were Satan and wanted to corrupt the world, the first thing I would do would be to convince everyone I was God so that they follow me. Therefore, I'd do everything I could to make them think I was God. Perform miracles? You bet, including raising people from the dead. Dazzle them with power.

Agreed. When you bring a Deceiver or Adversary figure into the scenario, it just underscores the point I made back on page 3. Though individuals' standards and expectations may vary, in general it's possible, using observation and reason, to decide whether an entity claiming to have godlike abilities has in fact demonstrated such. But deciding that said entity is the Creator, the One God of your particular Covenant, or even some particular god of some ancient pantheon, would still require just as much application of faith as just believing in that deity in the first place without any such demonstration. After all, the impressive being could be Satan or Loki or Coyote instead. Or aliens. Or special effects programmed into the Matrix.

As for whether a particular deity is male or female, the only ways to decide are...

1. The being themself tells you which, and you believe them.
2. Someone or something else tells you which, and you believe them.
3. You assign one or the other attribute to the deity yourself, based upon your own reasoning, preference, or authority.

Note that #1 is moot unless it actually happens, and that #3 is irrelevant to anyone else, unless they believe you.
 
As for whether a particular deity is male or female, the only ways to decide are...

1. The being themself tells you which, and you believe them.
2. Someone or something else tells you which, and you believe them.
3. You assign one or the other attribute to the deity yourself, based upon your own reasoning, preference, or authority.

Note that #1 is moot unless it actually happens, and that #3 is irrelevant to anyone else, unless they believe you.


Actually, the thing that bothered me about god being male was that those who believed in this strongly were using the bible as proof, and TBH, I only say god is a female just to be contrary to that belief and the men who think they're better than ALL women, but trust me, a lot of folks in the MSN and fox forums went ballistic over that, and someone even went so far as to tell me that just having real faith made it a fact that god was a male.

I don't even know what that means.

It was also troubling that many religions put men at the top and also in charge of everything, including women (look at the taliban and sharia law), and none of that seemed right to me.

Personally, if she does exist, I tend to think that what Julian of Norwich revealed in her book Revelations of Divine Love is more accurate because in one part (paraphrasing her words) she explained that she felt that god encompassed both the spirit of a man and a woman.


A copy of the book (I'm not sure if it's the long or short version) can be found here (and also at the links at the bottom of my dissertation below):



You can find my dissertation about the book here (originally written by a friend, but the final version was edited and written by me):



FULL DISCLOSURE
: I am a male, and my user ID is from the main character (a talking cat) in my novels. I also had a pet cat called AmyStrange, and my avatar is a picture of her.


-
 
Last edited:
There's an even bigger problem.

Let's even assume that one can demonstrate that something occurs that is "magical," or "miraculous," and, ultimately has to be an outcome that happened because of a higher power.

How do you know that higher power is God?

Back in the old days on the usenet group alt.atheism, there was a guy there named Wen-King Su, and every once in a while he'd pop in and ask the question that stopped every theist in their tracks: How do you know the being you are calling God is actually God and not a Powerful Deceiver?

The short answer: it cannot be done. Not that "I don't know how to do it" but that it is basically impossible. As soon as you acknowledge the possibility of a supernatural being, you cannot distinguish between truth and lies.

I always think it is funny. Christians are the ones who love to proclaim how "Satan is the Father of Lies," but when it comes to Satan's behavior, they treat him as an honest character. I have always said, if I were Satan and wanted to corrupt the world, the first thing I would do would be to convince everyone I was God so that they follow me. Therefore, I'd do everything I could to make them think I was God. Perform miracles? You bet, including raising people from the dead. Dazzle them with power.
I've had and seen similar discussions, and the point apologists often miss is that the "Deceiver" in question wouldn't even need to approximate the power of a supreme God; he need only be resourceful enough to deceive *them*. Insisting that the Deceiver couldn't fool them devolves onto a (frankly rather dubious) contention for their *own* superpowers of discernment, not for God's supremacy.
 

I am pretty confident there's no god at all, and the universe gets by quite nicely without one. If there were, I think it would be so weird and alien and unexpected few theists would acknowledge it and those who did would realize that issues like gender are laughably silly.

If there were a god and if that god cared to make it/him/her self known, I'm sure it would be possible. We don't really need to know how. We're not god after all. This isn't a rock too heavy to lift.

Will all be well again? I hope so, but I think it's going to be a long winter before we get the daffodils again.
 
"Myself, one of the things that would convince me was for her (wearing a body cam) to go right into Gaza (or wherever Hamas has them) and get the hostages with bullets bouncing off her and everything. (Of course, bouncing off the hostages too)."

So in your opinion if there's a God she shouldn't even worry about bouncing bullets hitting the innocent ?
 
Hmm I suspect this is one of those things where OP says "I just love waffles" and someone replies "Oh so pancakes are just ◊◊◊◊ on the ground to you then huh? Real nice"
 
Hmm I suspect this is one of those things where OP says "I just love waffles" and someone replies "Oh so pancakes are just ◊◊◊◊ on the ground to you then huh? Real nice"
Had she instead said, "if there's a God she would have intervened with Holocaust", even though it would still show her focal point to the world, which is no problem for me, I'd not have brought up the question. Your anology is as bad as her outlook.
 
Last edited:
"Myself, one of the things that would convince me was for her (wearing a body cam) to go right into Gaza (or wherever Hamas has them) and get the hostages with bullets bouncing off her and everything. (Of course, bouncing off the hostages too)."

So in your opinion if there's a God she shouldn't even worry about bouncing bullets hitting the innocent ?


Yup, why not? My idea of god would be someone who would bring the "innocent" back to life.

Obviously, your idea of god would just leave them dead.


-
 
Hmm I suspect this is one of those things where OP says "I just love waffles" and someone replies "Oh so pancakes are just ◊◊◊◊ on the ground to you then huh? Real nice"


You must LOVE negative people.


-
 
Had she instead said, "if there's a God she would have intervened with Holocaust", even though it would still show her focal point to the world, which is no problem for me, I'd not have brought up the question. Your anology is as bad as her outlook.


I'm NOT a she. AmyStrange (a talking Cat) is a character in my novels.

It's in my profile.


-
 
Last edited:
Yup, why not? My idea of god would be someone who would bring the "innocent" back to life.

Obviously, your idea of god would just leave them dead.


-
Excuse me for being so stupid. I should've known for some people "innocent" means only their kind. I thought innocent people who suffer in Gaza were not just the Israeli hostages.
 
Excuse me for being so stupid. I should've known for some people "innocent" means only their kind. I thought innocent people who suffer in Gaza were not just the Israeli hostages.


I agree, but the innocent ones wouldn't be shooting at god either, and besides, don't the terrorist get 16 raisins when they die defending Allah?


-
 
Excuse me for being so stupid. I should've known for some people "innocent" means only their kind. I thought innocent people who suffer in Gaza were not just the Israeli hostages.

This had jumped out at me, as well. I hadn't spoken out about this, because I hadn't wanted to derail the thread. But now that you have, I'd like to add my support to your POV, for what that is worth.

Absolutely, there's something deeply troubling about a mentality that sees Godhood in the miraculous saving of a thousand odd innocents, while remaining oblivious of the suffering of orders of magnitude greater numbers of innocents right alongside, and indeed when questioned doubles down by disingenuously conflating those innocents with the killers. Which last is, of course, standard SOP for the apologists for evil; as are patently disingenuous and completely risible accusations of antisemitism that I've seen thrown out at anyone who questions their frankly psychotic morals and worldview.


...Not to derail your thread, @AmyStrange. Like I said, I'd held my peace despite being troubled by that portion of your OP. And nor have I any intention to pursue this line of discussion any further in this thread. But since @winter salt spoke about this, only to be blithely handwaved away, then I thought I'd briefly add my voice in support to his --- for what that is worth.
 
This had jumped out at me, as well. I hadn't spoken out about this, because I hadn't wanted to derail the thread. But now that you have, I'd like to add my support to your POV, for what that is worth.

Absolutely, there's something deeply troubling about a mentality that sees Godhood in the miraculous saving of a thousand odd innocents, while remaining oblivious of the suffering of orders of magnitude greater numbers of innocents right alongside, and indeed when questioned doubles down by disingenuously conflating those innocents with the killers. Which last is, of course, standard SOP for the apologists for evil; as are patently disingenuous and completely risible accusations of antisemitism that I've seen thrown out at anyone who questions their frankly psychotic morals and worldview.


...Not to derail your thread, @AmyStrange. Like I said, I'd held my peace despite being troubled by that portion of your OP. And nor have I any intention to pursue this line of discussion any further in this thread. But since @winter salt spoke about this, only to be blithely handwaved away, then I thought I'd briefly add my voice in support to his --- for what that is worth.


You'll probably be surprised to know that I agree with both of you.

The god I would create (for a story or a novel) wouldn't let anyone down and would save everyone and not just the thousand odd innocents you refer to.

How would she do it? I haven't ironed that part out yet, but if you've got any ideas, I'll be glad to listen.

I never intended this thread to become a serious philosophical discussion like it sometimes has, and that doesn't bother me, nor should it derail it or be outside the bounds of discussion either.


-
 
Last edited:
I think it all depends on what kind of god you're thinking about. For a deistic sort of god, which is not personal or endowed with the kind of personhood some gods have, the question is irrelevant. The only proof of such a god would have to be inferred. No luck so far. For a watchmaker god too, the issue comes too late. If it/he/she didn't leave a trace before blowing up or whatever, tough luck. And so on for the vaporous spiritualities people come up with to pretend they haven't fallen for the god schtick.

If you're thinking of some variant of the theistic, Jehovah-style god, the omnipotent omnigod, then we really don't need to figure out how it might be done. We can come up with human suggestions, but a really goddy god can do anything and needs no guidebook. If old Jehovah wanted us to know, rather than believe he exists, he would snap his figurative fingers and we'd know, and never need to know how he did it. Nor would he have to adhere to any human criteria like good works to justify himself. I mean, he could put on some kind of show, do something we really like, write stuff in the sky, turn the ocean pink or strangle our enemies or whatnot, but that would just be a new version of the old parlor trick entertainment. If you believe such a god exists, you must believe he/she/it could do it even if we have no idea how. If you don't believe that, then you've bought yourself a cut-rate demiurge.
 
Last edited:
You'll probably be surprised to know that I agree with both of you.

The god I would create (for a story or a novel) wouldn't let anyone down and would save everyone and not just the thousand odd innocents you refer to.

How would she do it? I haven't ironed that part out yet, but if you've got any ideas, I'll be glad to listen.

I never intended this thread to become a serious philosophical discussion like it sometimes has, and that doesn't bother me, nor should it derail the thread or be outside the bounds of discussion either


-

Fair enough, then.

I'm not surprised to have you agree. Call me naive, but even now what surprises me is when people don't agree with this completely unassailable straightforward POV.

What had initially troubled me, although I'd kept quiet about it, was how your test for Godhood, in both power and goodness, mentioned only the hostages --- with which moral position I fully agree! --- but then blithely ignored the suffering of far greater numbers right alongside. And what now prompted me to speak out was your disingenuous conflation --- pardon me, but what else can I call it? --- of those innocents (the vast masses of the "other" innocents) with those vile killers by lightly bringing up the virgins/raisins. That wasn't agreement, that was handwaving away, and disingenuously at that. (Pardon my repeated use of the word, but what else am I to call it?) I've seen enough of this attempted defense of the indefensible, and attempted defense of evil, by so many of whom I'd not have expected such, that I thought briefly to add my voice here, for what that is worth, to @winter salt 's on this.


...Heh, I did post one more time on this here, didn't I, despite saying I wouldn't? ...Won't now. ...And acknowledged and appreciated, your agreement now, @AmyStrange . Fair enough, then.
 
... I never intended this thread to become a serious philosophical discussion like it sometimes has ...

Haha, yes, I did get that. After having already thrown in some "serious" discussion myself. I gather that what you're really looking for is people's ideas on scenarios that might make a disbeliever believe --- with the emphasis on the scenarios themselves, the wilder the better. Which also is fair enough, why not.
 
Fair enough, then.

I'm not surprised to have you agree. Call me naive, but even now what surprises me is when people don't agree with this completely unassailable straightforward POV.

What had initially troubled me, although I'd kept quiet about it, was how your test for Godhood, in both power and goodness, mentioned only the hostages --- with which moral position I fully agree! --- but then blithely ignored the suffering of far greater numbers right alongside. And what now prompted me to speak out was your disingenuous conflation --- pardon me, but what else can I call it? --- of those innocents (the vast masses of the "other" innocents) with those vile killers by lightly bringing up the virgins/raisins. That wasn't agreement, that was handwaving away, and disingenuously at that. (Pardon my repeated use of the word, but what else am I to call it?) I've seen enough of this attempted defense of the indefensible, and attempted defense of evil, by so many of whom I'd not have expected such, that I thought briefly to add my voice here, for what that is worth, to @winter salt 's on this.


...Heh, I did post one more time on this here, didn't I, despite saying I wouldn't? ...Won't now. ...And acknowledged and appreciated, your agreement now, @AmyStrange . Fair enough, then.


Yes, it definitely would've been better if I'd added that after she freed the hostages, she then went around the world to tell all the leaders off, especially trump, putin, the islamic extremist, and all the religious ones, and then went to free the North Koreans.

Could anyone then doubt that she was god?


ETA: I've been lately floating a theory around in my head that the god you believed in (while alive) would also be the god you got after you died, unless you didn't believe in her (or him or it), and then you'd have no afterlife. I'm trying to come up with a story that would go along with that as the premise.


-
 
Last edited:
Yes, it definitely would've been better if I'd added that after she freed the hostages, she then went around the world to tell all the leaders off, especially trump, putin, and the islamic extremeist, and then went to free the North Koreans.

Could anyone then doubt that she was god?


-

Sorry, man, despite the likes and despite the agreement offered, that's not ...straight.

Yes, it definitely would've been better if you'd added that alongwith freeing the hostages --- not after, but alongwith --- "she" would also ease the continued suffering of the whole masses of the "other" innocents, far greater in number, right alongside. (Alongside, both spatially and contextually.) That's the part in your post that was troubling, not the Trump-and-Putin-and-Kim-Jong-Un thing.

You're trying to pretend this is whataboutery, but it isn't really.

Don't mean to make this acrimonious, but please don't pretend to "like" unless you really do, and please don't pretend to "agree" when it seems you don't.

...Logging off from this now. This isn't the time and place. Sorry for the brief derail.
 
Last edited:
I agree, but the innocent ones wouldn't be shooting at god either, and besides, don't the terrorist get 16 raisins when they die defending Allah?


-
I never get into any debate on this topic since I see the same bigotry and narcism (that
-I believe- emerge from their similar so-called monotheistic religions) on both sides of these warring peoples, and so I don't want to look like I am siding with any of their murderous cultures, and for my other personal reasons; but when I say "innocent" I expect from any decent human being to at least consider the tens of thousands of the children that got killed and maimed in this conflict, as the innocent, not the Hamas militants you deceptively introduced in their stead.

Chanakya already answered your reply better than I can ever do, although a little too mildly to my taste, so I'll only add this one question as my reply:

Why did you assume the bullets that'll bounce off of the hostages and the god of hostages would be Hamas bullets while İsrail has already been bombing the couple hundreds of hostages along the couple hundreds of thousands of other innocent people ?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, man, despite the likes and despite the agreement offered, that's not ...straight.

Yes, it definitely would've been better if you'd added that alongwith freeing the hostages --- not after, but alongwith --- "she" would also ease the continued suffering of the whole masses of the "other" innocents, far greater in number, right alongside. (Alongside, both spatially and contextually.) That's the part in your post that was troubling, not the Trump-and-Putin-and-Kim-Jong-Un thing.

You're trying to pretend this is whataboutery, but it isn't really.

Don't mean to make this acrimonious, but please don't pretend to "like" unless you really do, and please don't pretend to "agree" when it seems you don't.

...Logging off from this now. This isn't the time and place. Sorry for the brief derail.


So basically, you're arguing about semantics, and on top of that, you also think that I'm lying.

TBH, I don't see any hope in the continuation of this discussion anyway.


-
 
Last edited:
Why did you assume the bullets that'll bounce off of the hostages and the god of hostages would be Hamas bullets while İsrail has already been bombing the couple hundreds of hostages along the couple hundreds of thousands of other innocent people ?

When I singled out Hamas, I was wrong.

Children being killed in a time of war is why I protested against the Iraq war, and why a lot of protestors I know today are against the Israel and Hamas (and other extremist groups) war for that very same reason.

We aren't pro-terrorist. We're pro-children.


-
 
So basically, you're arguing about semantics, and on top of that, you also think that I'm lying.

TBH, I don't see any hope in the continuation of this discussion.


-

◊◊◊◊. NO!

You disingenuously seize just on the "alongside", while ignoring the rest, in order to pretend this is "semantics". That's patently disingenuous.

And no, I don't accuse you of lying per se. I do accuse you of disingenuousness, an accusation I believe I have clearly substantiated right in the course of this short exchange, every time I have made that accusation.


...Heh, you, on the other hand, would be within your rights to accuse me of outright "lying" for keeping on responding to this, despite more than once saying I wouldn't!

...Not to make this acrimonious, like I said. Nothing personal. But I stand by everything I've said. You're wrong on this. And what's more, you're being disingenuous about this as well. Just say plainly that you disagree, if in fact you don't agree. We can live with that disagreement, and engage fully amicably nevertheless, no reason why not.

----------

eta: Oh, those diamond thingies. For a moment I was wondering where those came from. Those, instead of the asterisks from earlier on.

----------

etaa:

... When I singled out Hamas, I was wrong...

That, again, is fair enough. Completely unambiguous. Couldn't have asked for more.

Happy to shake on that, if you're willing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom