Don't be stupid man.
Wasn't exactly my point that in order to prove something to someone, the other party must be open to listening or accepting?
And you translate that general comment towards myself. Interesting. ...and then you call me irrational. 
This reminds me of a claim I once heard about how the joke about the joke was on me. Well, no, sorry, that's not how it works. Either way, the joke is still on you because you made it. It doesn't matter if you meant it as a joke, you didn't clearly delinate that it was. This is straight out of the Andrew Schafly School of Argument. It's ridiculous.
But worse than that, it's simply not true.
If you had offered a rationalization, anywhere, in this entire thread, it might have made sense that it is what you say it is. But you haven't. You haven't even tried to invoke God having an
Omniscient Morality License so He can do this sort of thing "for the greater good", you've just repeatedly stated "He's God". You admitted that you were not prepared to argue this on its rational merits once already.
From your behavior and your existing admissions, it is not at all a stretch to conclude that you are neither willing nor ultimately able to discuss this subject in a rational manner. So no, my friend. The
Pacific Northwest Areboral Octopus is on you, after all.
No, I just an example which is more difficult, since similar to God, it's based on some notions and principles that can't really be mesured.
Only it isn't. To argue moral relativism, with me, in this context, is the height of folly. If anyone was ever deserving of moral relativism on their own traits rather than on the situation itself, God would be that "anyone", because, as I said, Omniscient Morality License.
Yet here you argue moral relativism on the traits of a person rather than their situation with me, when I have just rejected the very concept totally and utterly.
If that's the only conclusion you can come to... There are others, but f'course, you're not even capable of seeing them, let alone pondering over them.
Actually, I am. You probably wish to invoke the persecution complex here in your own mental defense (nobody else is going to be very impressed with it, I suspect, as it's rather old hat). Only it's not our fault, so sorry.
Now, the great pity of this is that we do not shout them or ban them or suppress them. The oroblem are not capable of answering us in a reasonable, rational fashion. A man can only make so many ad hoc assumptions to uphold his beliefs before it becomes a concious effort, and at that point it becomes what was termed in a blog I like to read "chosen to pretend to believe" because, in making a concious effort to continue to believe this, they know on some level that what they believe
is wrong.And to avoid either entering this state, or reminding themselves they are in it, the religious in our midst suppress
themselves.In the battle of reason and magical thinking, reason has forever met magical thinking and demolished it, much as science and engineering have destroyed faith on the battlefield. (Which is considerably more inclusive then mere religious faith; Guadalcanal could be considered American engineering demolishing Japanese racial faith for example.) That is our victory, won perhaps on our terms, but our terms were equitable and fair.
Ours is not an illegitimate trimuph, much as you might like to imagine, and as you have previously tried to claim by insulting the moderating team. It is, perhaps, an easy one; Scotty is the most capable opponent we've had in some time, probably since Liberator (who, despite his easiness to goad, was actually a reasonably good debater when he kept his cool). But victory won easily is still victory. It is not the fault of those who came prepared that the other side did not.
