On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:33:00 GMT, "Scot McDermid" <bite@me.net> wrote:

I still say that **if you want** to examine what a

Nothing to do with "want", moron.

person (theist) is claiming then you have
to consider their definitions for things (what
they mean by God). DON'T tell me
"There is no reason to consider it". I said

There isn't, moron.

"if you want to". You have made it

Nothing to do with "want", moron.

abundantly clear you have no interest

Nothing to do with "interest", moron.

in starting with the theist's premise.

You're still filtering it though your pig-ignorant stupidity.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:33:00 GMT, "Scot McDermid" <bite@me.net> wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4rbpu2paac3tog6e40et69d84ng5npiho7@4ax.com...

I made the mistake of trying to explain things to him in terms of
virtual vs. actual reality and he predented I believed inmultiple
realities, which he has been attributing to me for years.

I no longer agree to other people's re-interpretations of ehat I say
because of things like that.

Once again, cut'n'pasted from an earlier message in this thread, in
response to McDermid's repeated misrepresentation:

He has an "it does/doesn't exist" hangup through which he filters whet
he has been told.

When we haven't even reached that stage yet.

The only place where "God" means what theists mean by it, is inside
their theism.
For everybody else it "what theists believe as part of their
religion".
It's their word, their concept etc. Not ours.
They start off from it as a presumption.
And they're the only people who do that.
Inside their religion.

Alrighty Christopher. I'm happy to say that I
finally think I understand what the hell you have
been talking about. The key has been that you
have STOPPED using terms like "virtual reality",
"domain", and STOPPED saying "applies to".

You're a fucking idiot. I only used those terms after you had
repeatedly misinterpreted what you were told, in an effort to try and
get through your wilful stupidity. "Virtual reality" is computer
speak. "Domain" is logic speak or set speak. "Applies" is accurate.

I'll spare you from my gloating. But if you take this
opportunity to gloat, I'll bash your head in with
the distinction between a "group of people" and
a "virtual reality" until your death.

It's not just a group of people, moron, but a logical domain.

I still say that **if you want** to examine what a

Nothing to do with "want", moron.

person (theist) is claiming then you have
to consider their definitions for things (what
they mean by God). DON'T tell me
"There is no reason to consider it". I said

There isn't, moron.

"if you want to". You have made it

Nothing to do with "want", moron.

abundantly clear you have no interest

Nothing to do with "interest", moron.

in starting with the theist's premise.

You're still filtering it though your pig-ignorant stupidity.

But I also say that if you *don't* consider
what someone else says about things,
you might miss on something that is
objectively real.

You're still doing it,moron.

I believe that if something
is actually real then it is actually and objectively
*real*.

It was nothing to do with whether or not something is objectively
real. Everything to do with presumptions being granted. But then you
knew this 8 years ago.

This is the source of what you call my
"exists/doesn't exist hang up". I do not
wish to debate this point with you.

I'll remind you that it was you who kept adding does/doesn't exist
when you knew perfectly that was nothing to do with it, hypocrite.

BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING TO DO WITH ITS PUTATIVE EXISTENCE,
BUT WHERE PRESUMPTIONS ARE GRANTED.

So shut the ***** up about it.

And why have you been net.stalking all this time, to lie about things
like "subjectivist fallacy" all these years?

Lastly, I have been pursuing you because
(1) you call everyone "moron"

Only when they're morons. Like you.

(Do not bother now to call me a moron. It will only
prolong this.)

Then don't be one.

and
(2) I honestly have not understood what the
hell you have been talking about.

That's because you've been stupidly filtering everything through your
"does/doesn't exist" filter.

(Do not bother to now call me "too stupid to
understand. It will only prolong this.)

Then don't be that.

By the way, I am "Interloper" and also "Roy"
(but you knew that.)

Of course I did. You were just a dishonest nym-shifter.

<plonk> this net.stalking troll's latest incarnation. Again.