One Reply to “Codex Gigas Devil”

  1. Neil, I find it terribly irnioc that you act with so much hubris about my reading comprehension skills and fail to comprehend what I’ve written and notice that actually answer your questions though not as simply and directly as perhaps you require. You see, I answered those questions while simultaneously pointing out how you were loading the questions. But because you missed it, here it is again:And if you were to read my response more carefully you would see that I did not claim to be raised in an atheist home. I did say that I don’t necessarily hold to all that my parents do – which demonstrates that I’m not simply programmed, but that I’ve thought about it, and further I assert that I do not believe just because my parents did (as well as pointing out that just because your parents believed something does not make it untrue) – indeed, your assertion to the contrary is completely arrogant and unfounded and you’ve got zero evidence for your assertion about what I believe, instead, you’ve just asserted your fallaciously circular argument (which is perhaps based simply on your own experience or an insufficient sample of anecdotal evidence). Perhaps it’s also worth repeating:Really Neil, if all you’ve got is a great big circular logical fallacy, spiced with some pretty big prejudice, I think we’re done. I’m not interested in shouted, predictable (or should that be ‘programmed’?) responses that ignore criticism and rebuttal.Rhetoric does not a valid argument make.Now presumably you’ll get in a tizz again because I referred to your shouting. You’re right, I don’t have to read it, and if it’s apparent that you will continue to shout, I won’t read it. Be clear then: my future non-response will be the result of attitude not the result of any kind of superior argument on your part (just in case you might be tempted to interpret it that way). Unless you’ve got anything new to add, I think we’re done, don’t you?

Leave a Reply