Rigidity in your own views does not preclude flexibility in the views of others.
You’ve got a serious case of “Crotchety-Old-Man” syndrome. I’ll now step off your lawn. 
I know. You’re right. I keep intending to stop.
Monocarp?
:dubious:
If I wasn’t time tripping, I’d prolly be able to go right to it.
Agamemnon says hi
And before you ask, yes, you are chopped liver.
And a healthy dollup of respect to you, along with a tip of the hat, for that acknowledgment of a personal shortcoming.
I’m a religiously minded person, and I can’t stand most of the people who choose to title themselves similarly…narrow-mindedness is a disease of the fool. Fools come in all colors, shapes, sizes, etc. The worst fools are the closed-minded theists, 6000 year old earth creationists, “God has a plan just for ME!”-tards, etc.
I’m convinced that there’s a God, and it’s mostly because I choose to believe in a world where there is one (as defined by my beliefs). If you don’t believe in a God, that’s totally up to you, and it’s not my right to stop you from thinking that way. It is my obligation however to ask someone if they’re interested in learning about my faith, since I firmly believe that it’s a “better” way of living than what the majority of the world lives. What a dick I’d be if I kept what I believe to be better all to myself?
Pissed off proselytizing atheists can be just as bad, sometimes worse for their vulgarity and anger, than theists.
I can’t decide whether or not that’s a pun.
He’s not witnessing. He’s asking why other people don’t believe in his specific god, despite inconcontestible evidence like the cuttlefish. Hardly warrants a Pitting though.
He is debating. Or at least he thinks he’s debating.
He combines a lot of the worst things in the world: what passes for cocksure teenage intellectualism, deeply held (and never questioned) religious beliefs, and shitty homeschooling that had little and/or poor logical reasoning or science training.
Doesn’t warrant a Pitting but does warrant Pity for certain.
I took it as one. Very funny.
Hum…If love was blind then blondes wouldn’t have more fun, boob implant doctors would have no income, and bikinis would come in size XXXXXL.
Therefore: Love must not be blind.
Ray can not possibly be God.
God says knock this shit off right now.
Wouldn’t fallacy of the converse be assuming the converse of a statement has to be true ? Not that if the converse doesn’t hold up, the original statement isn’t true?
I’m more inclined to agree with Morgenstern that the original stated premise is flawed. (Amusing nonetheless)
God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is blind
Therefore Ray Charles is God
It’s the fallacy of the converse. We accept the truth of each proposition 1-3.
But the QED part is a problem, and the problem is the assumption that because the statement is true, its converse is also true. That, you can’t do.
But that’s what’s done: God is love, love is blind. Therefore God is blind (ignoring the fallacy of equivocation).
So, now we have:
Ray Charles is blind
God is blind
Therefore Ray Charles is God.
See the converse in play now? Many people could ALSO be blind, and not be God – the mere fact that God is blind and Ray Charles is blind doesn’t allow us to conclude that God is Ray Charles.
How about this to prove that babies are toys?
Anyway, yes Ray Charles is God.
And so is Stevie Wonder.
Also Jose Feliciano, George Shearing, Diane Schuur, Art Tatum, and lest you fall for some apparent misdirection, you.*
*not a comprehensive list
I grok.
ETA: Anyway I kinda like Timo, if only because he makes me think of Timoteo from this post.
Oops.
I mean Timo. Hi, Timo! That invitation to check out other threads still stands! 
[Moderating]
Calling other posters “motherfuckers” is a violation of the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
A widely misunderstood doctrine. There is only one Divine Person, but He has a bad case of dissociative identity disorder.
Yeah I agree. I don’t feel ire, but rather frustration.