And in the process he, and you, took for granted that believing (faith) had something to do with reason — Fire Ologist

No, faith still has nothing to do with knowledge and rationalism or reasonable reason. Faith is belief nothing more. It is a gap in knowledge filled by belief.

DiffEgg, “just to shit on people?” Come on man. — Fire Ologist

Shit on, critique, who gives a f "oh the word Critique is good, but shit one, come on man!"

As for Anslem and Aquinas, they're both people who clearly have a need to justify their faith. It's like he would need to justify to himself why his wife loves him ... or why he loves his wife...

Kinda dumb imo... the fuck do I need to justify my love for my wife to anyone?

"SEE SEE SHE DOES LOVE ME!" Sounds a lot like doubt...

"SEE SEE, GOD DOES EXIST! YOU SEE MY FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT, PRAISE BEFORE GOD HE DOES EXIST!" Pretty much a desperate desire imo.

Noone of real faith needs to do that... just saying.

And the fact that they would publish fallacies as logical arguments shows the desperation imo.

Regardless of how much faith they had, their desire to turn it into logic was greater.

I'm sure there were Nazi that had faith in their reasoning too... saying faith is reason because of bad reasoning is just saying faith is faith... cause that's what poor reasoning is: faith.

An educated guess is a mix of knowledge and faith, faith being the gap in knowledge behind the educated guess. If you got faith the educated guess will work its because you can perhaps visual and bridge the gap of knowledge. You never know until you're capable of demonstrating said thing multiple times with accuracy.

Quine actually has something pertinent to say about this... I'll have to go through the pursuit of truth again, I'll find it and post it. But it was something about evaluating where you went wrong in experimentation...

Guys seriously... If Nietzsche declares Tragedy the most beautiful art, and effeminacy is responsible for bringing it about, then we can clearly say Nietzsche is a god damned champion of the feminine...
On Corruption Gay Science 23:

Secondly, a society in which corruption takes a hold is blamed for effeminacy: for the appreciation of war, and the delight in war, perceptibly diminish in such a society, and the conveniences of life are now just as eagerly sought after as were military and gymnastic honours formerly. But one is accustomed to overlook the fact that the old national energy and national passion, which acquired a magnificent splendour in war and in the tourney, has now transferred itself into innumerable private passions, and has merely become less visible; indeed in periods of "corruption" the quantity and quality of the expended energy of a people is probably greater than ever, and the individual spends it lavishly, to such an extent as could not be done formerly—he was not then rich enough to do so! And thus it is precisely in times of "effeminacy" that tragedy runs at large in and out of doors, it is then that ardent love and ardent hatred are born, and the flame of knowledge flashes heavenward in full blaze. — Nietzsche

This is why for Nietzsche the highest presentment of man is under the feminine goddess of war... because of the feminine traits that temper the destructive qualities of the masculine...

Just because you're so used to seeing him bash the Semitic conception of "woman" doesn't mean you're assigning Nietzsche's belief correctly... you're assigning his critique about something that irks him as his belief...

There's a reason noone has challenged this thread. And any accusations of Nietzsche being overtly masculine to the point of undermining the feminine well, you're all wrong and I can throw the proof at anyone here until they are drowning in it.

And do note Effeminacy is the feminine instinct in man... Ariadne... that keeps man's minotaurs at bay. So the most destructive parts of masculinity doesn't break them.

There is always at least a double orbit going on for Nietzsche.

Dude, do you honestly know how much thought I even put behind my OP? This isn't some big issue to me. I started as a way to shit on people constantly defending their bloated fallacies and delusions, without budging due to a style of intellectual obstinance...

Hit me with your link. Do you know how often I even think about faith? Pretty much 0 because when it's something I have faith in, I have faith in it. I don't ever have a need to ever justify my faith to anyone. Not even myself.

its like that train game whisper in one ear the story is morphed to the next passing... eventually after 3000 or so years of Christian handling of the story Sisyphus has become tied to meaningless action because the Sabbath is Holy... In Sisyphus's day Eu Prattein was holy (Vita Activa). Vita Contemplativa was for the shameful.

Hannah Arendt discusses this at great length (Vita Activa and the reversal of its value). Through that ancient lens, we know Sisyphus was happy. There was no punishment. Instead of languishing in the underworld to rot away in stagnant contemplation, he got to live Eu Prattein/Vita Activa for eternity. Not sure if "living your ideal" for eternity is "punishment." Seems like the winning proposal from Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden...

Doing what you love over and over again.

"The human condition of labor is life itself." Hannah Arendt on the ancient perspective of Vita Activa (Human Condition). So Sisyphus was "punished" with life it self...

Okay so you think Santa Clause is big in Iran...

No? Why? Different Values? Ah...

Apply here...

Sisyphus was, in fact, like Autolycus and Prometheus, a widely popular figure of folklore—the trickster, or master thief.

He was popular for his excellence. Weird that a thief and trickerster would be popular vs infamous... because those were virtues then.

Its not appeal to Nietzsche... ffs it's literally an ancient Grecian Ideal... that you refuse to acknowledge... activity = happiness and somehow you think Sisyphus's eternal activity is mindless and meaningless because you refuse to accept that we know Sisyphus is happy because of Eu Prattein...

You gotta look at the situation from the Grecoan Ideal... not yours. Step outside your reification of the Sisyphus story that's been passed down via Christian scholars...

Do you think Santa Clause is big in Iran?

Sisyphus was punished for his defiance rather than rewarded, that punishment being condemned to rolling a boulder endlessly up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. That's what I meant by the reference. Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus recast him as a heroic figure as an embodiment of human resilience and defiance against absurdity but I never found it persuasive. — Wayfarer

Camus simply does what Nietzsche does repackage Christian psychology with the Myth of Sisyphus. Absurdity is the secular notion of Sin. Still not the Grecian notion. There was no bad conscience, ressentiment, or responsibility in Sisyphus's day. That is fundamentally a Judaeo-Christian morality. We don't have to imagine Sisyphus as happy. He was a Noble who exemplified Eu Prattein. We know he's happy. Thus we know it's not punishment. Because activity = happiness.

Read it more carefully.

86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman"

You'll see quite clearly Nietzsche knows how to differentiate between women and this "woman" that women have scorn for...

The same "woman" Nietzsche discusses in BGE 232-239. I always found it weird that readers cant differentiate between the two... he literally uses an A instead of an E. The trick is noticing when he says woman is blah blah blah it's not women are it's about "woman." The Semitic ideal of woman...

it is pointless, in a way, sisyphean — Wayfarer

Erm... that's the Christian mythology of Sisyphus not the Grecian... I would perhaps place my faith in the Grecian perspective of the myth...that is Sisyphus is a Greek Noble who lived to the Grecian ideal of Eu Prattein and became a demigod of his own ideal... for outsmarting Zeus and Thanatos.

Attention again should be paid to the almost benevolent nuances which, for instance, the Greek nobility imports into all the words by which it distinguishes the common people from itself; note how continuously a kind of pity, care, and consideration imparts its honeyed flavour, until at last almost all the words which are applied to the vulgar man survive finally as expressions for "unhappy," "worthy of pity" (compare δειλο, δείλαιος, πονηρός, μοχθηρός]; the latter two names really denoting the vulgar man as labour-slave and beast of burden)—and how, conversely, "bad," "low," "unhappy" have never ceased to ring in the Greek ear with a tone in which "unhappy" is the predominant note: this is a heritage of the old noble aristocratic morality, which remains true to itself even in contempt (let philologists remember the sense in which ὀιζυρός, ἄνολβος, τλήμων, δυστυχεῑν, ξυμφορά used to be employed). The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon — Nietzsche, from GoM 10

Now now, I know it hurts that you of all people had to offer up a Nietzschean counter. But what's the best way to drum up conversation? To allow for a plurality of interpretations thus you leave the original syllogism ambiguous... :joke:

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy pg 4

That you of all people put on Nietzsche's mask is a "win" for me.

The syllogism itself took less than 60 seconds of pondering... but look how much conversation it's drummed up. I don't care about it being perfect... and in the process I've learned things. I already addressed that it was an ambiguous syllogism that allows for tons of equivocation.

Section 27 of Pursuit of Truth may be of interest to you from this regard. Quine speaks of responsible and irresponsible beliefs.

Is it supposed to be hard? ED?

or they grew out of each other. Still an excellent counter argument! The best in the thread imo.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

Cunning reversal, they are the faithful that overcome themselves in their opposite? To inciting to higher and higher... Nietzsche would be very proud of this from YOU of all people Banno.

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of  what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 39

Aka Nietzsche's foundation for Amor Fati from the Gay Science 276. Aka even if it doesn't bring you to love them, it will move you in the direction in which Nietzsche details the superman becoming a reality... to overcome your destructive and divisive animal nature, in suffering with them from them by simply looking the other direction "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet." Faith of faith isn't faith, but "faith of a sort..."?

I disagree. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what will to power is... yes Nietzsche admires strength but for Nietzsche strength is formed by overcoming oneself, not domination, and most certainly not resentful or divisive like Trump.

The will to power is a sensation, it is that electricity that rushes down your spine, that feeling that fills you when you overcome some struggle or another... could be you discovered a new artistic technique that allows you to overcome and create your artistic vision in reality...

We can clearly see from Nietzsche's Amor Fati that waging war with what you find ugly is of no interest to Nietzsche, not even saying No. GS 276 And we can see that Nietzsche details this Amor Fati style of life by Jesus Christ and his Glad Tidings in AC 33. Furthermore from 33 we have several ways that Jesus transvaluates values to live towards his own evaluations, rather than that of the Semites, he lists several of these psychological evaluations and they're all found within the psychology of type who emulate an Ubermensch (EH § 1 of Excellent Books[refrencing Ubermensch as a type]).

The only time Nietzsche ever even points to the superman becoming a reality is in Ecce Homo, and he states it's when Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and treats even his adversaries with sincere kindness while suffering with them from them ..."Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet" (EH § 6 on Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

if God . . . has disappeared from his authoritative position in the suprasensory world, then this authoritative place itself is still always preserved, even though as that which has become empty.

The New Idol fills that spot. The problem with saying "Christianity" as Christ in the negative sense for Nietzsche comes in at AC 39...

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, AC 39

This is in part why Foucault discusses Nietzsche as giving Christ back the image of the ultimate in life affirming grace. (Madness and Civ pg. 78-79). Because the Earthquake at Port Royal was all omg it's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again ... for the next 200 years.

I want to say "I love you all," but I'm not quite sure I believe that. But I wonder what would happen if I had faith that I could have faith in that? Inspired by @Vera Mont

Thus Spoke Zarathustra ... § XI & XV even the philosophy forums is so divided by the new idol that we lack humanity... thanks for that gut check.

Fair point, my father is that style of obstinate so it hits home in a way I should have already realized.

Hehe, well to be fair I don't think OP is declaring "everything wrong in society is man's fault." But rather misogyny and the manosphere is something that's man's fault majority wise. Sure there may be some women counterparts to it but they're not the prime movers.

The subject isn't about Katz, it's about on misogyny and the manosphere, and how to oppose Trump's projecting of it...

on misogyny, the manosphere – and why men must oppose Trumpism. — Amity

Me bringing up points that Nietzsche discusses this in verbose style is both on topic and was to back precisely what @unenlightened said...

That you lot want to pretend Nietzsche doesn't belong here is the side track... not me, I know he brings a lot of food for thought to this table...

If you wanna say Nietzsche's a misogynist take it to my thread. Not cry about how he doesn't belong here.

Otherwise, that you can't muster a counter to my thread, declaring Nietzsche as a misogynist, then you're letting my argument stand...

hence

We must educate men better," said the wise man, — Nietzsche

But apparently it's not proper to speak about educating men on their patriarchal repression of women here in this thread. Even though this thread is seemingly about that.

Personally, I think a secure faith wouldn't even be phased by my assertion...

Sure but what I think you'll end up finding is the intuitive hunch in the unconscious providing stimulus based off knowledge and faith, which ends up falling victim to Hume's Guillotine. That last leap to close the gap in knowledge being faith.

You could be doing something that seems sus to your wife, and because (fake example follows) she's been cheated on in the past, her intuition is that you're cheating on her...

When you're really just planning some awesome for her.

Fair enough, I'll make another post to show you're wrong even here. Nietzsche details the aristocracy as responsible for allowing conditions to get so bad socialism is even an option considered...(will need to find the aphorism)

The highest and lowest are complementary to the same causes and both are required ...BGE200

Just as the Apollonian and Dionysian incite each other to higher and higher births so too do higher men and the masses... because higher men and the masses bridge over their mutual cause. Abusing the other to the point of life denial is slave morality...

Do you honestly think Nietzsche would be upset about the abused rising up to affirm the demands of their life? No. Literally what he details of master morality... but if the abused rose up to then make a system of life denial against those they overcame... yes.

I mean we're talking about misogyny and the manosphere

misogyny, the manosphere — Amity

Nietzsche brings this up time and time again when he bashes on the Semitic idea of "woman."
Not heeding Nietzsche is just willful ignorance.

I get it you guys don't like that you have a hard time understanding Nietzsche. But he's all over this topic in his philosophy. Remember there was a time before women were seen as Sin and Corruption... there was a time before women needed to be locked away and repressed.

I'm certain that Nietzsche is not relevant to the topic -- he was not a misogynist in your terms -- but he is very much a masculine philosopher. His philosophy is from the male perspective, through and through. — Moliere

Is that why the highest presentment of man is through the doctrine of Athena? A woman? (According to Nietzsche)

Odd that a masculine philosopher would state man's highest presentment is in the doctrine of a woman...when Nietzsche asks "who but I knows Ariadne?" He's asking: who but I know the feminine instinct?

Intuition is past experience and knowledge being checked by the unconscious...

Seems like Nietzsche knew it better than Mill. *shrugs*

already detailed that it was equivocation to a degree.

Not exactly, a quantum of force cannot actually be weaker than it is... you and T Clark have made me consider my perspective a bit more, and what I'm coming to is that ... but say St. Thomas's Quantum of Force in faith is already this grand mountain... we can say his Faith is still as strong... but say instead of St. Thomas being 100% faith-based, he's 60% Faith and 40% logic and perhaps a lack of clarifying here has caused all sorts of equivocations, perhaps of myself even... due to the quantum of force not actually being lesser... just because a persons intellect may be divided in a 60/40 split doesn't necessarily mean that because a persons thought moves to 55/45 split that the quantum of force behind faith grew less... but that the quantum of force behind reason grew more...
there IS a nuance to it... so for some people a quantum of force of faith may not be phased by reason... — DifferentiatingEgg

Though once something becomes absolutely true via syllogism I believe they convert a part of the quantum of force behind faith into knowledge... necessarily lessening faith.

However if the syllogism is fallacious then it's not really absolute truth... and we can show Thomas and Aquinas are both fallacious arguments for God... and thus they don't actually convert faith to absolute knowledge.

But the fact remains that some part of them yearns to take God from the realm of faith to knowledge... thus something inside of them in unsatisfied with their faith...

Thanks! I'll be a bit more verbose then. — unenlightened

I think N might be able to help you with that...

Human All Too Human § 415 on the Idolatry of Love... which was originally a device of the female intellect that over centuries women forgot the origin of love, and became ensnared and more deceived by it than men... basically the sophisticated slavery you're speaking about...

Love.—The love idolatry which women practise is fundamentally and originally an intelligent device, inasmuch as they increase their power by all the idealisings of love and exhibit themselves as so much the more desirable in the eyes of men. But by being accustomed for centuries to this exaggerated appreciation of love, it has come to pass that they have been caught in their own net and have forgotten the origin of the device. They themselves are now still more deceived than the men, and on that account also suffer more from the disillusionment which, almost necessarily, enters into the life of every woman—so far, at any rate, as she has sufficient imagination and intelligence to be able to be deceived and undeceived. — Nietzsche

Gay Science 68 on women molding themselves to mans ideal out of that need for love. Your quote

and enforced by the threat of rape. Uppity women are "asking for it". — unenlightened

reminds me of that last bit from 68 where some guy from the crowd says they need to educate women better (so they don't corrupt men)...

Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him. — Nietzsche

But articles of faith are more like a premise. They aren’t something we conclude. We just know. Like the fact that my wife loves me. I just know it. I could never create a syllogism that shows “therefore wifey’s love for FireO exists.” — Fire Ologist

Pretty easily... define love then move to make the syllogism, if you need to make a syllogism to define love then do that also...

Something like:

P1: All people who consistently act with maximally positive interests, deep care, loyalty, and affection towards another person loves that person.

P2: FireO's wife acts with maximally positive interests, deep care, loyalty, and afrection towards FireOlogist

C: Therefore FireO's wife loves him.

is it possible to you for someone to know Nietzsche deeply (as you do, and I mean that) and also disagree with him? I think, if you are honest, you would say no — Fire Ologist

You mean like N did with Z?
Just because I don't detail my differences with Nietzsche doesn't mean we don't have them. I am Dionysian at my core. My first philosophy teacher noticed this and with a mild prophetic vision said that I would love him. And I do. That aside, Nietzsche is, but, one band of intensity within me.



What you said touches on something I read earlier about diaquotation and how it brings truth to something much simpler of a notion to what the sentence actually states vs all the mumbojumbo. Like my OP is kinda poorly written in the disquotational aspect. BUT what I mean, is a bit more nuanced mumbojumbo... to me, at first, I believed the OP directly states my deeper understanding but it did a pretty shitty job.

Veteran discounts pretty much cover sales tax and then a little extra.

The disability rating is from combined injuries and trauma from the military, I get paid quite a pretty penny from that alone also. Free healthcare, waiving of the first $40,000 in property taxes, pay yourself marginally from your business, and keep the rest in house and write off everything else.

If you were a 100% disabled military veteran, you'd not have to pay taxes either.

Pragmatic... you see, in high-school, all my Marxist friends made compelling critiques for me to do precisely what they said I shouldn't be doing... if capitalism and democracy are such exploitative systems then why shouldn't I position myself in a way that minimizes my exploitation? Plan ahead...

So you’re stealing from me. — T Clark

Whatever, so has every politician you've ever voted for... so too does your God... 0 fucks given. There are those who follow the rules and those who bend them to their will.

Just as obtaining knowledge comes as a crime against God. The highest presentment of man is always seemingly through some crime or another... blah blah blah... well it's only a crime to those who adhere to a model. And I don't adhere to your model of evaluations. Democracy has stolen enough in its name... just as all States have...

I can't go claim untamed land for my own? I gotta ask a state? Fuck off... just because it's a model doesn't mean I ever agreed to be born into American slavery...

Who did you vote for this time around? Me I don't cause politics is beneath me.

I'm kinda doubting you voted for Harris... and Trump's already stolen more from you than I ever will.

From just his time in office since January...

And if you voted Trump... that means you gave that imbecile the okay to steal from you, knowing how much he did the first time... and to steal from me.

Oh no a little language... what a Sin... :roll:

Im sitting here chilling to Quine, if Fire Ologist was here he'd be in another chair chilling legs up, kicked back. We're not here with guns to guts and swords to throats...

I mean, what greater criticism could I leverage at myself other than saying the words I used in my syllogism were too broad to allow for clarity? Such that it even caused me to equivocate that a shifting in percentage a person relies on faith to believe in something diminished their faith in something... literally an overturning of the original syllogism for something more nuanced...

The fuck more do you want?

Evaluations come through faith and knowledge. Just because you gain knowledge doesn't diminish the quantum of force behind your faith. Just means the evaluation has less reliance on faith. But how much faith do you need to know that in decimal based math 1+1=2? None.

But if I say 1+1=? And you say 2... you're taking it on faith that I'm in decimal based math not binary. Because you believe, rather than know, I'm talking about decimal based math.

If I said no it equals 0 then you wouldn't have faith that it equals 2... you know it doesn't because I'm using binary to equal 0.

Because I've established a necessary truth about my outlook...

Conclusions from valid and sound arguments do precisely the same, establish a necessary about an outlook.

Thus it takes some aspect of faith and converts it to knowledge... if it's logically valid and sound... all arguments for God aren't...so it's the case no conversion is actually achieved...

The attempt however points to a desire to convert belief to knowledge because the person feels knowledge is more substantial than faith, at least in the regards of the argument...

Aquinas and Thomas both show us that they had more of a desire to move God to a realm of absolute truth, rather than a belief...regardless of the quantum of force behind their faith is. They're really just proselytizing with fallacious arguments. Trying to make God something more concrete...

Even though I have no faith — Fire Ologist

I highly doubt you have 0 faith. That's just your clumsy handling.

You didn't even attempt to understand my perspective. You're grounded in your own.

boil it down, or do you think the Nazi were spewing knowledge? Rather than proselytizing with belief through logical fallacies...When you make a rational argument for something you're attempting to convert faith/belief into objective truth... Necessarily Objective Truth requires 0 faith. Thus making an argument for something as absolutely objectively true means you're taking faith and converting it to knowledge. If I had 10 dollars in bills and convert it to coins ... I no longer have 10 dollars of bills. I have LESS BILLS MORE COINS.

Thus converting faith into knowledge via trying to rationalize it means you're trying to rely less on faith for your outlook...

Not exactly a bad thing... overcoming oneself in their opposite and all.

I knew the dialecticians would get butthurt though.

I thought logical fallacies, identified only by using reason, had nothing to do with faith. — Fire Ologist

Pretending FAITH IS KNOWLEDGE IS A LOGICAL FALLACY DUMBASS...

Using knowledge to show faith is a fallacy or your argument relies on a leap in logic has nothing to do with the identity of faith...

Dialecticians... :roll:

When a person continually defends fallacy and reasserting leaps in logic... IE FAITH... They're proselytizing... because they're asserting Faith as Absolute Objective Truth...

Something like energy is never created nor destroyed is, I think, is an absolute truth, (unless someone has recently discovered a way to overturn that law, dunno dont really give a shit about the law to keep up with the lore surrounding it.)

I’m not going to get into the weeds with someone who says they know what I think already and supports that observation “FireOlogist is nothing but this” with “my opinion”. — Fire Ologist

That's all you can do. Even your shit interpretation about Nietzsche...

You know what such a statement does allow for though? You to prove me wrong. Faith motivates beyond despair... and that's a beautiful thing. — DifferentiatingEgg

You're too much of a bonehead to prove me wrong is all.

Hence you detatch...

T Clark and Count Timothy were cunning enough to force a reevaluation.