The defeated, the undefeated and the proud (invite only)

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

Kylie my dear - and please excuse my bluntness - i caught you out! Dont forget i record all our discussions and i have a good memory.

I have posts from you dated back to jul 2018. It is very easy to go back and find out what you said. Lets examine your posts, they should be consistent.

At least as consistent as any religious belief.

Kylie - "I can prove to you that I have a dragon in my backyard. All you have to do is decide that I am telling the truth, and then you will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that I have a dragon in my backyard."

That was a posit - put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.

Kylie - "Does that sound like a good argument to you? No?"

Kylie - "Then why are you using the same basic argument to get me to believe in God."

And religious people have been using the exact same line of logic to support the existence of God for centuries. I can't tell you how many times people have told me that the proof that God exists is that if I open my heart I'll get the proof and then I'll be a believer.

Now you bring in the comparison. You did not make an analogy to start with.

An analogy would be "Just as a Sword is the Weapon of a Warrior, a Pen is the Weapon of a Writer"

An analogy compares two completely different things and look for similarities between two things or concepts and it only focuses on that angle.

You made a posit and a comparison without making an analogous statement.

This sort of quibbling is the last refuge of one who can't actually make a point. Or who just wants to appear intelligent while contributing nothing of value.

You suggested you could posit a dragon with similar qualites to a deity - also attributed was an element of christian faith - and it would be no different to a belief in the God of Abraham.

These are your words are they not?

You said, "To get the proof we must follow the christian method ie open your heart to Jesus, confess your sins and acknowledge that He is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that Jesus is who He says He is and you must humble your self.

Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of God and He can be known through the Holy Spirit."

This is no different to me saying, "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."

My dear you started this out as a comparison between a belief in the Christian God and a belief in this dragon deity.

The fact that the same method of existence verification works for God and the Dragon does not mean the dragon is a deity.

The same method of existence verification works for both my television and my airfryer, that doesn't mean I can cook dinner with my television.

C. Scott Littleton defines a deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness,beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life"

Your dragon fits the defintion of a deity and that was the point you were making.

A sparrow has powers greater than me - it can fly, it can make long journeys entirely unaided by machines - and yet I don't see it as a deity. And meditation on the nature of a sparrow can lead to new levels of consciousness. Your definition seems lacking.

I investiagted this dragon by asking you many relevent questions.

It was pretty easy to figure out that you were making it up as you are an atheist. So no matter what, i had you!

So you just decided that the dragon was a deity, even though I told you very specifically that the dragon does not want me to think of it as a deity, and then used your flawed conclusion to justify your premises.

So that's two logical fallacies you committed. You cherry picked by ignoring the information that you didn't like because it disagreed with what you wanted to believe, and you started with your conclusion and used that to find your evidence.

Naughty naughty.

You did not really believe in this dragon and you are the only source for said dragon. I deduced from your actions on cf that this dragon is not consistent with your beliefs.

If it was, you would be preaching this dragon and not atheist faith.

Since I am far more of an expert on my beliefs than you, I feel totally justified in saying you are WRONG.

You figured out that it was not a good idea to keep this dragon as a deity and stay true to your original comparison.

I never stated anywhere that the dragon is a deity.

Lets re cap.

Icon - "So this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes, this dragon is a deity?"

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

Kylie - "The dragon is what allows life and the universe itself to exist."

Kylie - "The One True Dragon has no need for a human style name."

Icon - "You said this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes and blesses - a blessing is God's or a gods favour and protection."

This dragon is a god to you."

Kylie - "You are the one who decided that the Dragon should be called a God, not me. Don't demand that I explain the conclusions you jump to."



The dragon being a deity was a no win for you. You set too many parameters and used specific words like blessings, and universe.

Those things do not a deity make.

When you decided that this dragon was definitively not a deity, thats when you changed tune and moved away from your original intention.

Again, I never said the dragon was a deity. That is an assumption you have made, despite the fact that I have clearly stated otherwise.

You made the category error once you changed your dragon to a non deity with Godly attributes (.eg Properties ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.)

There was never any change.

Your dragon is invisible, intangible, the reason for life itself & the universe, lives in your backyard, can only communicate with you, rewards faith with blessings, does not conform to traditional sources, has a temper and has only been documented by one person.

There may have been others. Just because I'm unaware of them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

The Godly/Christian attributes you tried to attribute were blessings, faith, acknowledment as my saviour, the Dragon spirit - faux Holy Spirit - and the reason for the universe.

Kylie - "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour."

Kylie - "For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."

These statements seem to conflict with your statements below.

Kylie - "You are the one who decided that the Dragon should be called a God, not me."

You made it the crux of your argument.to attribute these attributes.

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

You did not disagree with the terminology and did not discourage it.

Of course I'm not going to disagree with it. It's not up to me to decide how you have a relationship with the dragon. Like I said, if you want to call the dragon a deity, go right ahead. That doesn't mean the dragon actually is a deity, it just means you think of it as one. You can call anything a deity if you like. You can call your car a deity if you like, I won't stop you. Doesn't mean your car is a deity though. And it doesn't mean I will think of your car as a deity either. And in just the same way, you can think the dragon is a deity, but that doesn't mean it is a deity and it certainly doesn't mean that I think the dragon is a deity.

Your argument is at best confused and you are not consistent ie first it was a comparison between a belief in a dragon deity and God, now this dragon could be an alien - this is distraction.

I don't recall ever saying that the Dragon could be an alien. Please point out where I did so.

Your inconsistency shows the dragon is infact made up. You cannot posit such a thing with these attributes (deity or not), it is a unrealistic comparison and cannot achieve your intended purpose (.eg that you can prove to me that you have a dragon in your backyard by attributing theistic attributes and utilizing the Christian faith formula.)

Its not the end of the world kylie. You made an erroneous comparison and utilized a category error. You also tried to change the nature of this dragon when things did not go your way.

lol.

I do.

Do you have a problem with analogies?

Kylie - "Have you ever seen Star Trek? Would you call Q a god?"

What you are asking of me is to consider the fanciful imagination of fiction writer maurice hurley - the writer of star trek for q - when we consider your dragon and why it has theistic attributes.

Its not too intricate or consists of many interconnecting parts or elements - that make it too hard to understand.

You want me to consider a fictional character in a sci-fi/fantasy tv show as evidence for your fictional character.

For someone who talks a lot, you seem utterly incapable of answering a question.

Would you call Q a god? Is Q a deity?

Kylie - "How would you tell the difference between a super advanced alien and an actual God?"

I could do research on their appearances and their abilities. I guess close encounters from eye witnesses would be a good start when we consider alien appearances.

The greys are a common reported close encounter.

Grey-skinned humanoids, usually 3–4 feet tall, bald, with black almond-shaped eyes, nostrils without a nose, slits for mouths, no ears and 3-4 fingers including thumb.

With gods all we have is tradition.

Vishnu has either dark blue, blue-gray or black colored skin, and as a well dressed jeweled man. He is typically shown with four arms.

Most of the time, Zeus is depicted as a grown man with a beard and longer curly hair, holding a scepter or thunderbolt and is sometimes accompanied with an eagle, his sacred animal.

This doesn't answer my question. All you are doing is giving examples of aliens and gods. But if that's your answer, then your test is worthless, because you're basically saying, "If it looks like something people have claimed were aliens, then it's an alien. If it looks like something people have claimed were gods, then it's a god."

Its always fascinated me how some atheists are more receptive to aliens than God based on probability.

Why is the existance, of the God of Abraham, less probable than the existence of life outside earth?

Because we know for a fact that biological life can exist.

Are you familiar with the Fermi paradox? Please consider Gods Word given to us - the Bible - and the first coming of Jesus in your answer.

Care to tell me why consideration of the Bible is required for a discussion of the Fermi paradox?

 

[the iconoclast]

At least as consistent as any religious belief.

Hey hey

So your position is as consistent as any religious belief.

Is it logical to suggest that religious beliefs are not consistent therefore your position is also not consistent?

Or are religious beliefs consistent therefore your position is consistent?

And religious people have been using the exact same line of logic to support the existence of God for centuries.

Lets try it.

I can prove to you that Jesus is real. All you have to do is decide that I am telling the truth, and then you will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that Jesus is real.

Are you suggesting that my faith is built on someone telling me Jesus is real, i decided this to be true and thats all there is? (.eg My beliefs were convinced by a statement and not by anything else?)

Would you like to know?

I can't tell you how many times people have told me that the proof that God exists is that if I open my heart I'll get the proof and then I'll be a believer

Still, this seems to be more distraction from the point.

You made a posit - put forward as fact or as a basis for argument

You assigned attributes - a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

You inaccurately postulated theistic attributes to a non deity - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

And made a comparison - estimate of the similarities between these two entities.

You based your conclusions on personal whim, imaginative possibilities and a fictional tvshow, rather than based on known sources or documents.

You extended the application of (a method or conclusion) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

Your position is built on supposition, assumption and conjecture. You cannot posit such a thing and then try to compare it to the God of Abraham by suggesting 'if i give this dragon these theistic attributes then the argument is no different for both entities"

Why are you allowed to give theistic attributes to a non deity? (.eg Properties ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property).

Why is this not a category error?

Ps

Why should consider the fanciful imagination of fiction writer maurice hurley - the writer of star trek for q - when we consider your dragon and why it has theistic attributes?

This sort of quibbling is the last refuge of one who can't actually make a point. Or who just wants to appear intelligent while contributing nothing of value.

Spotto quibble!

Your quibble tally is 6 but good work for going nearly a year without using the term.

You did not make an analogy to start with.

An analogy would be "Just as a Sword is the Weapon of a Warrior, a Pen is the Weapon of a Writer"

An analogy compares two completely different things and look for similarities between two things or concepts and it only focuses on that angle.

You made a posit and a comparison without making an analogous statement.

What do you think?

Show me how i am wrong?

The fact that the same method of existence verification works for God and the Dragon does not mean the dragon is a deity.

Kylie - "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit"

Why did you make the above statement in relation to your deity?

The same method of existence verification works for both my television and my airfryer, that doesn't mean I can cook dinner with my television.

And what is this method of existance verifcation and how does tv and an airdryer relate to our discussion?

A sparrow has powers greater than me - it can fly, it can make long journeys entirely unaided by machines - and yet I don't see it as a deity.

So a sparrow is greater than you because it has the ability to fly.

An ant can withstand pressures up to 5,000 times greater than its own body weight. Is this ant greater than u?

A domesticated cat has better night vision than you have. A domesticated cat is greater than you.

A cow has many stomachs and can produce milk better than you can. Cows have greater powers than you.

I want us to be on the same page. What definiton of powers do you utilize in this definition?

A deity is defined as a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness,beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life.

And meditation on the nature of a sparrow can lead to new levels of consciousness. Your definition seems lacking.

So all i have to do is decide that you are telling the truth, and then i will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that meditating on the nature of a sparrow will lead to new levels of consciousness.

Is there any way we can test this theory of yours?

So you just decided that the dragon was a deity, even though I told you very specifically that the dragon does not want me to think of it as a deity, and then used your flawed conclusion to justify your premises.

I based it on these posts.

Kylie - "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit"

Icon - "So this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes, this dragon is a deity?"

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

Kylie - "The dragon is what allows life and the universe itself to exist."

Kylie - "The One True Dragon has no need for a human style name."

Why did you attribute these theistic attributes to a non deity?

And why were you agreeable to me using the term deity?

So that's two logical fallacies you committed. You cherry picked by ignoring the information that you didn't like because it disagreed with what you wanted to believe, and you started with your conclusion and used that to find your evidence.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

What am i ignoring when i consider your dragon a deity?

Naughty naughty.

Hahahaha!!!

Since I am far more of an expert on my beliefs than you, I feel totally justified in saying you are WRONG.

So what you write (.eg your actions) have no correlation to your beliefs?

How can you be an atheist and believe in the Dragon at the same time?

I never stated anywhere that the dragon is a deity.

Icon - "So this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes, this dragon is a deity?"

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

Why were you agreeable for me to use the terminology?

Those things do not a deity make.

What makes a deity? How do we define one?

Again, I never said the dragon was a deity. That is an assumption you have made, despite the fact that I have clearly stated otherwise.

What were yoi conparing then? A belief in a non deity compared to a belief in a deity?

What was the point you were trying to make?

There was never any change.

I disagree.

There may have been others. Just because I'm unaware of them, doesn't mean they don't exist

Does that mean because you are ignorant to God that does not mean, he does not exist?

Of course I'm not going to disagree with it.

Dude you seem confused.

In regards to terminology with your dragon (.eg deity), you did not disagree with the terminology and you did not discourage it?

It's not up to me to decide how you have a relationship with the dragon.

Who is it up to?

Like I said, if you want to call the dragon a deity, go right ahead. That doesn't mean the dragon actually is a deity, it just means you think of it as one.

See here is the problem. We need terms which are used with a particular technical application to label what things are and to be on the same page.

The fact that you wont discourage the use of a term is quite vexxing.

It either is or it isnt.

Being agreeable to use a term, means you do not disagree with the terminology. So if you not disagree with the term applied than the terminology will be applied.

Usually if something is not then people will discourage the use ie say im speaking with a noticeable bald man.

Icon - "please excuse me sir, you have all the properties of being bald, would i be correct to say that you are bald?"

Man - "If you want to use that term, go ahead."

Is the man bald and can i use that terminology?

You can call anything a deity if you like. You can call your car a deity if you like, I won't stop you.

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet?

Doesn't mean your car is a deity though. And it doesn't mean I will think of your car as a deity either.

How would we tell if my car is a deity, what properties would make it so?

And in just the same way, you can think the dragon is a deity, but that doesn't mean it is a deity and it certainly doesn't mean that I think the dragon is a deity.

How would we make the distinction? How donyou disprove that this dragon is not a deity?

I don't recall ever saying that the Dragon could be an alien. Please point out where I did so.

Is your dragon an alien or not?

Why did you bring up star trek as your burden of proof?

Lol

Its not the end of the world kylie. You made an erroneous comparison and utilized a category error. You also tried to change the nature of this dragon when things did not go your way. Why is your reaction to laugh loudly?

Do you have a problem with analogies?

Lets say i do. How do you define an analogy?

For someone who talks a lot, you seem utterly incapable of answering a question.


Would you call Q a god? Is Q a deity?

Whoops sorry. No q is not a deity. He is a made up extra terrestrial from star trek.

What you think?

This doesn't answer my question. All you are doing is giving examples of aliens and gods.

What other method should we use?

But if that's your answer, then your test is worthless, because you're basically saying, "If it looks like something people have claimed were aliens, then it's an alien. If it looks like something people have claimed were gods, then it's a god."

Whats wrong with this? Who is the authority on terminology?

How do you define alien and God?

Because we know for a fact that biological life can exist.

What absolute fact do you base this on?

Care to tell me why consideration of the Bible is required for a discussion of the Fermi paradox

The Fermi paradox is named after physicist Enrico Fermi and refers to the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for and various high probability estimates[1] of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy.

According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or at least their probes.

So what you think?

Please consider Gods Word given to us - the Bible - and the first coming of Jesus in your answer.

Cheers

Ps
. I got you, you are dragging it out and digging yourself further in. Good for me.

Need more effort from you though and that 1 point is still with me as you have not shown how you have commited a category error. Until you face this charge, all you are doing is distraction.

Cheers and i think you are cool

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey

So your position is as consistent as any religious belief.

Is it logical to suggest that religious beliefs are not consistent therefore your position is also not consistent?

Or are religious beliefs consistent therefore your position is consistent?

No, I am saying that if you are to reject my position on the grounds of being inconsistent, you must reject all religious beliefs for the same reason.

Lets try it.

I can prove to you that Jesus is real. All you have to do is decide that I am telling the truth, and then you will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that Jesus is real.

Are you suggesting that my faith is built on someone telling me Jesus is real, i decided this to be true and thats all there is? (.eg My beliefs were convinced by a statement and not by anything else?)

Would you like to know?

I am saying that is a big part of it, that people hear the claims and believe them because they take the person making the claims to be an authority figure and therefore right. For example, the kid who is taken to church where the priest tells them that Jesus was real. The kid sees the priest as an authority figure, someone who should be believed, so when the claim is made, it is believed.

You inaccurately postulated theistic attributes to a non deity - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

No. What I said about the dragon was true. I have never made any claims about the dragon's attributes that were false. If you choose to proceed on the assumption that such attributes can only be possessed by deities, then that's on you, not me.

And made a comparison - estimate of the similarities between these two entities.

You based your conclusions on personal whim, imaginative possibilities and a fictional tvshow, rather than based on known sources or documents.

You have a witness, right here! What more do you want? Christianity has never been able to provide anyone with this - someone who has had a direct encounter with the figure being discussed!

Your position is built on supposition, assumption and conjecture. You cannot posit such a thing and then try to compare it to the God of Abraham by suggesting 'if i give this dragon these theistic attributes then the argument is no different for both entities"

No, it is built on my personal experience. Or are you suggesting that reports from me are not valid?

Why are you allowed to give theistic attributes to a non deity? (.eg Properties ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property).

Why do you claim that only a deity can have such attributes?

Why is this not a category error?

Because you are falsely attempting claim that the dragon is a deity when I have made it clear it is not.

Why should consider the fanciful imagination of fiction writer maurice hurley - the writer of star trek for q - when we consider your dragon and why it has theistic attributes?

You seem incapable of understanding the notion of a hypothetical situation.

Either that, or you know that if you actually follow the point I have been trying to make with the analogy, you'll find yourself proven wrong.

Spotto quibble!

Your quibble tally is 6 but good work for going nearly a year without using the term.

You did not make an analogy to start with.

An analogy would be "Just as a Sword is the Weapon of a Warrior, a Pen is the Weapon of a Writer"

An analogy compares two completely different things and look for similarities between two things or concepts and it only focuses on that angle.

You made a posit and a comparison without making an analogous statement.

What do you think?

Show me how i am wrong?

You want to waste time debating on the proper word we should use to discuss this thing, or do you actually want to discuss the thing.

You're like a politician who, when tasked with writing a new important law, wastes months on deciding which colour paper the law should be written on.

Kylie - "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit"

Why did you make the above statement in relation to your deity?

You know, when you consistently ignore my statements that the dragon is not a deity, you come across as very rude. Why should I discuss anything with you when you demonstrate countless times that you are going to ignore what I say anyway?

And what is this method of existance verifcation and how does tv and an airdryer relate to our discussion?

I can use a particular method to verify the existence of my TV, and I can use that same method to verify the existence of my air fryer. The fact that the same method works for both the TV and the air fryer does not mean the air fryer and the TV are the same.

Likewise, the same method you propose for verifying God can be used to verify the dragon - just open your heart and you will be given the proof you need. But just as before, the fact that the same method works for both does not mean the dragon is a deity.

So a sparrow is greater than you because it has the ability to fly.

It has an ability I lack.

An ant can withstand pressures up to 5,000 times greater than its own body weight. Is this ant greater than u?

Again, it has an ability I lack.

A domesticated cat has better night vision than you have. A domesticated cat is greater than you.

A cow has many stomachs and can produce milk better than you can. Cows have greater powers than you.

I want us to be on the same page. What definiton of powers do you utilize in this definition?

A deity is defined as a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness,beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life.

Well, since you brought up the idea of a deity being something with greater powers than a person. Would you like to explain exactly how we can determine what it means for powers to be greater than a person?

So all i have to do is decide that you are telling the truth, and then i will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that meditating on the nature of a sparrow will lead to new levels of consciousness.

Is there any way we can test this theory of yours?

Well, you could actually try it, y'know...

I based it on these posts.

Kylie - "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit"

Icon - "So this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes, this dragon is a deity?"

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

Kylie - "The dragon is what allows life and the universe itself to exist."

Kylie - "The One True Dragon has no need for a human style name."

Why did you attribute these theistic attributes to a non deity?

And why were you agreeable to me using the term deity?

Because it is not my place to tell you how to hold belief in the dragon. If you want to believe the dragon is a deity, then so be it. but you must understand that I do not see the dragon as a deity, and thus I can believe in the dragon while still being an atheist.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

What am i ignoring when i consider your dragon a deity?

It's more that you insist that I must consider the dragon a deity, despite the fact I have told you countless times that I don't.

So what you write (.eg your actions) have no correlation to your beliefs?

What I have written is perfectly in tune with my beliefs.

How can you be an atheist and believe in the Dragon at the same time?

Because I don't consider the dragon to be a deity, as I have stated so many times I have lost count, but you continually ignore.

Icon - "So this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes, this dragon is a deity?"

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

Why were you agreeable for me to use the terminology?

Because, as I have said, it is not my place to tell you how you should have a belief in the dragon. All I ask is the same courtesy, that you don't tell me how to hold a belief in this dragon.

What makes a deity? How do we define one?

I doubt you'd ever be able to find a definition that all people would agree on.

What were yoi conparing then? A belief in a non deity compared to a belief in a deity?

What was the point you were trying to make?

I was making the point that I am still justified in being an atheist even though I believe in the dragon since I do not believe the dragon is a deity.

I disagree.

Then you are wrong. I never stated that the dragon was a deity. That was an assumption you made.

Does that mean because you are ignorant to God that does not mean, he does not exist

?

Perhaps. But that's not going to be enough to convince me that God is real.

Dude you seem confused.

In regards to terminology with your dragon (.eg deity), you did not disagree with the terminology and you did not discourage it?

I have said it countless times and I will say it again.

I do not consider the dragon to be a deity.

If you want to consider the dragon to be a deity, go right ahead. I'm not going to tell you how to hold your belief in the dragon.

But you can't tell me how to hold my belief about the dragon.

Who is it up to?

You.

Why would anyone else have any say in it?

See here is the problem. We need terms which are used with a particular technical application to label what things are and to be on the same page.

The fact that you wont discourage the use of a term is quite vexxing.

It either is or it isnt.

Being agreeable to use a term, means you do not disagree with the terminology. So if you not disagree with the term applied than the terminology will be applied.

Usually if something is not then people will discourage the use ie say im speaking with a noticeable bald man.

Icon - "please excuse me sir, you have all the properties of being bald, would i be correct to say that you are bald?"

Man - "If you want to use that term, go ahead."

Is the man bald and can i use that terminology?

But we don't have a definition of deity that everyone agrees to. Since we only have a subjective opinion that is different for everyone, it's more akin to someone saying that they think oysters are delicious.

Kylie: I find that oysters do not taste very nice, and I do not enjoy them at all.

Other person: That's strange, because it seems to me that oysters are among the tastiest of all foods.

Kylie: That's fine. If you wish to consider oysters as tasty, then I shall not stop you. However, I do ask that you refrain from insisting that I find them tasty as well.

How would we tell if my car is a deity, what properties would make it so?

As I've stated, we need a clear definition of deity first.

How would we make the distinction? How donyou disprove that this dragon is not a deity?

I've merely said that I do not consider the dragon to be a deity. If you can convince me to hold a definition of "deity" that includes the dragon, I will then consider the dragon to be a deity and reevaluate my status as an atheist.

Is your dragon an alien or not?

Not to my knowledge.

Why did you bring up star trek as your burden of proof?

To show that the character Q has attributes that would lead to him being described as a deity, yet he is not portrayed as a deity on the show.

Its not the end of the world kylie. You made an erroneous comparison and utilized a category error. You also tried to change the nature of this dragon when things did not go your way. Why is your reaction to laugh loudly?

Because all you can do is say it loudly. You have no evidence that I have done any of those things. All you have done is let your own biases colour your judgement - "The dragon Kylie describes is what I would consider a deity, therefore Kylie must think of the dragon as a deity too!"

Lets say i do. How do you define an analogy?

A situation, either real or imaginary, designed to illustrate a similarity in order to make a point.

Whoops sorry. No q is not a deity. He is a made up extra terrestrial from star trek.

What you think?

Well, obviously, I meant from an in-universe point of view...

What other method should we use?

How about clearly defining criteria and then proposing a test to see if an unknown meets those criteria?

Whats wrong with this? Who is the authority on terminology?

That's the problem - there is no authority. Everyone has their own opinions, so what one person can consider a deity, the next person might not.

Which, funnily enough, is the point I have been trying to get you to understand for the last week or so.

How do you define alien and God?

I think most people would say an alien is a life form that did not originate on Earth. As for God, I've already said that there is no clear definition of deity that everyone agrees on.

What absolute fact do you base this on?

*points at self*

Or do you think I am not a biological life form? Perhaps I'm a computer program?

The Fermi paradox is named after physicist Enrico Fermi and refers to the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for and various high probability estimates[1] of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations elsewhere in the Milky Way galaxy.

According to this line of reasoning, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or at least their probes.

So what you think?

Please consider Gods Word given to us - the Bible - and the first coming of Jesus in your answer.

You have not answered my question.

Why must I consider the Bible in my answer to this?

 

[the iconoclast]

No, I am saying that if you are to reject my position on the grounds of being inconsistent, you must reject all religious beliefs for the same reason.

Hey hey

Im going to change my mind and trust that you are not making your dragon up or have been inconsistent. You would not lie and make such a thing up - you are not deliberately making something up with an expressed agenda.

You are "a woman who has experienced the Dragon first hand right now" and you must be honest, and have integrity. There is no issue with trusting you here, you tell the truth.

Kylie - the proud atheist - has a dragon which is invisible, intangible, the reason for life itself & the universe, lives in her backyard, can only communicate with her, rewards faith with blessings

Even though her dragon does not conform to traditional sources, has a temper and has only been documented by one person. I have no reason to suggest you made this dragon up for any reason.

To get the proof that there is a dragon in her backyard, i must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit.

This practise is no different to the faith formula of Christian God. It is a bad argument for me to recommend this as it will work in the same way for kylies dragon - who is 100% real and experienced by kylie. If i open my heart to this dragon kylie has assured me i will get the proof.

Kylie - "Does that sound like a good argument to you? No?"

Kylie - "Then why are you using the same basic argument to get me to believe in God."

The dragon is a non deity with theistic attributes and can be proved as such when we consider the fictional character of q on star trek.

Kylie has presented an analogy even though an analogous statement was never made. She never made a posit but what she is doing is also a comparison.

I am saying that is a big part of it, that people hear the claims and believe them because they take the person making the claims to be an authority figure and therefore right. For example, the kid who is taken to church where the priest tells them that Jesus was real. The kid sees the priest as an authority figure, someone who should be believed, so when the claim is made, it is believed.

Do you believe this is my exact experience and situation?

No. What I said about the dragon was true. I have never made any claims about the dragon's attributes that were false. If you choose to proceed on the assumption that such attributes can only be possessed by deities, then that's on you, not me.

Whoops. The dragon is a non deity with theistic attributes and can be proved as such when we consider the fictional character of q on star trek. If i open my heart and believe, q will present himself and i assume give me the Holy Q Spirit.

A property can be ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that. We have a new precedent and will be used in further arguments.

And made a comparison - estimate of the similarities between these two entities.

You did make a comparison.

You have a witness, right here! What more do you want? Christianity has never been able to provide anyone with this - someone who has had a direct encounter with the figure being discussed!

Im convinced you are not deliberately making this up, you say you have a dragon and you are not lying. Im convinced you have a dragon as you declared, you are a eye witness.

Nobody has ever met Jesus and nobody has ever experienced God. You know this as a fact and have done plenty of research. It didnt happpen for you or others, therefore it cant happen.

No, it is built on my personal experience. Or are you suggesting that reports from me are not valid?

You are telling the truth and this is not a hypothetical situation or entity. This non deity exists and there is no reason for you to make such a thing up.

Why do you claim that only a deity can have such attributes?

I retract my statement. There is no set definition of deity and no authority on the matter, a sparrow has greater powers than you so the terminology is quite loose.

Because you are falsely attempting claim that the dragon is a deity when I have made it clear it is not.

The dragon is not a deity, we cannot be sure what a deity is when we consider q from star trek and sparrows.

You seem incapable of understanding the notion of a hypothetical situation.

My dear this is not a hypothetical situation. You are "a woman who has experienced the Dragon first hand right now"

Kylie - "You have a witness, right here! What more do you want?"

Kylie - "What I said about the dragon was true."

@Ophiolite agrees, thats why he likes your posts.

Either that, or you know that if you actually follow the point I have been trying to make with the analogy, you'll find yourself proven wrong.

I have been proven wrong. Belief in your non deity is comparable to God - when we follow the Christian formula. The Christian formula can be applied to all religions.

This is indeed an analogy and a real entity - why would you lie.

You want to waste time debating on the proper word we should use to discuss this thing, or do you actually want to discuss the thing.

Discussion is over. I believe you are telling the truth and are not deliberately making this dragon up. It is a hypothetical situation and yet a real dragon that you experienced. It is not a deity.

You're like a politician who, when tasked with writing a new important law, wastes months on deciding which colour paper the law should be written on.

I find egg shell white to be the best option after months of deliberation.

You know, when you consistently ignore my statements that the dragon is not a deity, you come across as very rude. Why should I discuss anything with you when you demonstrate countless times that you are going to ignore what I say anyway?

I have refrained from my previous position. Your dragon is not a deity, q from star trek is the burden of proof here and the terminology on deity is loose and there is no authority on the issue.

I can use a particular method to verify the existence of my TV, and I can use that same method to verify the existence of my air fryer. The fact that the same method works for both the TV and the air fryer does not mean the air fryer and the TV are the same.

Kylie - "The fact that the same method of existence verification works for God and the Dragon does not mean the dragon is a deity."

A tv and dryer are relevant to that discussion. Please excuse me

Likewise, the same method you propose for verifying God can be used to verify the dragon - just open your heart and you will be given the proof you need. But just as before, the fact that the same method works for both does not mean the dragon is a deity.

And why not. The concept of Christian faith can be attributed to almost anything. There is no issue attributing such characteristics to anything and if anyone does not like it... too bad.

Kylie is allowed to ascribe properties to a thing that could not possibly have that property and what she doing is reasonable.

It has an ability I lack.

Cool. The sparrow has greater powers than you.

Again, it has an ability I lack.

The ant is greater than you.

Well, since you brought up the idea of a deity being something with greater powers than a person. Would you like to explain exactly how we can determine what it means for powers to be greater than a person?

Im going to use your answer. If a sparrow can fly and you cannot fly, it has greater powers than you. Thats how i determine it now.

Well, you could actually try it, y'know...

Im going to get a friend of mine to try and get back to you. I believe you have experienced this dragon and it is real - why would you make such a thing up - however i have made a commitment to Jesus and have no desire to try.

I based it on these posts.

Cool. It is a hypothetical situation and we have your word this is the truth - re your dragon.

Because it is not my place to tell you how to hold belief in the dragon. If you want to believe the dragon is a deity, then so be it. but you must understand that I do not see the dragon as a deity, and thus I can believe in the dragon while still being an atheist.

You do not believe it to be a deity, i choose to side with you. It is not a deity.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Understood now.

It's more that you insist that I must consider the dragon a deity, despite the fact I have told you countless times that I don't.

The dragon is not a deity.

What I have written is perfectly in tune with my beliefs.

Exactly. You are not making this dragon up.

Because I don't consider the dragon to be a deity, as I have stated so many times I have lost count, but you continually ignore.

The dragon is not a deity.

Because, as I have said, it is not my place to tell you how you should have a belief in the dragon. All I ask is the same courtesy, that you don't tell me how to hold a belief in this dragon.

Please excuse me. You are a proud atheist and your received blessings from this dragon, the dragon is your saviour - still not a deity - and is the reason for life and the universe - still not a deity. This does not conflict.

 

[the iconoclast]

I doubt you'd ever be able to find a definition that all people would agree on.

Exactly who needs set definitions of words.

I was making the point that I am still justified in being an atheist even though I believe in the dragon since I do not believe the dragon is a deity.

All good. The dragon is not a deity and you are still an atheist who confesses your sins to it. This does not conflict. Please excuse my ignorance.

Then you are wrong. I never stated that the dragon was a deity. That was an assumption you made.

The dragon is not a deity. It is real, an analogy and a hypothetical situation. Iam convinced.

Perhaps. But that's not going to be enough to convince me that God is real.

You need to be struck of a horse, angels coming down from heaven and signs usually given to special people.

God is not real because you cannot perform a scientific experiment on Him and the evidence is not what you call sufficient.

I have said it countless times and I will say it again.
I do not consider the dragon to be a deity.

Your dragon is not a deity.

If you want to consider the dragon to be a deity, go right ahead. I'm not going to tell you how to hold your belief in the dragon.

You will not discourage my use of deity even though it is not.

Your dragon is not a deity but you will not tell me how i should believe in it. Those theistic attributes are only guidelines.

But you can't tell me how to hold my belief about the dragon.

Please excuse me.

You.

Me!

Why would anyone else have any say in it?

It's up to me to decide how to have a relationship with the dragon. Ok, i guess ill throw out confessing sins part.

See here is the problem. We need terms which are used with a particular technical application to label what things are and to be on the same page.

No we dont. Terminology is opinion based, i have come to this conclusion when i considered your reply about deity and how to use that terminology.

But we don't have a definition of deity that everyone agrees to. Since we only have a subjective opinion that is different for everyone, it's more akin to someone saying that they think oysters are delicious.

Oysters?!? Do you mean a large animal with brown fur, horns and hangs out will cows?

Kylie: I find that oysters do not taste very nice, and I do not enjoy them at all.

But we don't have a definition of oyster that everyone agrees to.

Other person: That's strange, because it seems to me that oysters are among the tastiest of all foods.

Kylie: That's fine. If you wish to consider oysters as tasty, then I shall not stop you. However, I do ask that you refrain from insisting that I find them tasty as well.

Exactly. Kylie does not find oysters tasty, so there is no set terminology on the word deity.

As I've stated, we need a clear definition of deity first.

There is none, the dictionary is useless here. The experts definition is not considered and everone has an opinion on the matter. We are doomed!

Not to my knowledge.

Your dragon is not an alien however q from star trek was used as a burden of proof. All good, for now on fictional TV shows will be allowable for a proof of burden. You set the precedent and i think its refreshing and not a disaster.

To show that the character Q has attributes that would lead to him being described as a deity, yet he is not portrayed as a deity on the show.

Exactly. The imagination of this particular star trek writer is valuable.

Because all you can do is say it loudly. You have no evidence that I have done any of those things. All you have done is let your own biases colour your judgement - "The dragon Kylie describes is what I would consider a deity, therefore Kylie must think of the dragon as a deity too!"

The dragon is not a deity or an alien.

A situation, either real or imaginary, designed to illustrate a similarity in order to make a point.

Cool. Im going to throw away the others definition and this is now the offical definition. Wierd though, i typed tgis sentence into google and nothing came up...what ever.

Kylie is honest about her deagon so I will trust she is looking after my interests.

Well, obviously, I meant from an in-universe point of view...

Well obviously....

How about clearly defining criteria and then proposing a test to see if an unknown meets those criteria?

Nah!

No criteria can be defined as we saw with deity.

That's the problem - there is no authority. Everyone has their own opinions, so what one person can consider a deity, the next person might not.

Exactly. Terminology and category is loose.

Which, funnily enough, is the point I have been trying to get you to understand for the last week or so.

Yep there is no authority on terminology, it took a werk or so but you have spoken nothing but logic and reason.

I think most people would say an alien is a life form that did not originate on Earth. As for God, I've already said that there is no clear definition of deity that everyone agrees on.

Settled.

*points at self*

Icon points at you.

Or do you think I am not a biological life form? Perhaps I'm a computer program?

I think you are real and i like you.

You have not answered my question.

Why must I consider the Bible in my answer to this?

According to the fermi paradox line of, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or at least their probes.

In comparison we already have a messenger of Gods word.

What do you think?

I've merely said that I do not consider the dragon to be a deity. If you can convince me to hold a definition of "deity" that includes the dragon, I will then consider the dragon to be a deity and reevaluate my status as an atheist.

I cannot convince you to hold a set definition on deity.

You are an atheist ie a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

How do you define the thing(s) you lack belief in ie what terminology for deity will you accept, that you reject a belief in?

Cheers

Im going to give that 1 point back.

Your dragon is real, it is not a deity and a property can be ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that.

So your belief in this dragon is comparable to God.

You definitely had an experience by opening your heart to the dragon, confessing your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour.

For this to work you had complete trust that the Dragon is who he says He is and you humbled your self. Once you had 100% faith, you got a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit.

You applied the Christian formula to this dragon and got a result!

What you think?

 

[Kylie]

Do you believe this is my exact experience and situation?

I think it may be a possibility, but I am not aware of the exact details of your situation. I have not proceeded assuming that this scenario reflects your experience, however.

Whoops. The dragon is a non deity with theistic attributes and can be proved as such when we consider the fictional character of q on star trek. If i open my heart and believe, q will present himself and i assume give me the Holy Q Spirit.

Quite possibly, although I wouldn't expect it to happen.

A property can be ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that. We have a new precedent and will be used in further arguments.

Woah, hang on there, I hope you aren't saying that the Dragon can't possibly have the qualities I've described.

Im convinced you are not deliberately making this up, you say you have a dragon and you are not lying. Im convinced you have a dragon as you declared, you are a eye witness.

Nobody has ever met Jesus and nobody has ever experienced God. You know this as a fact and have done plenty of research. It didnt happpen for you or others, therefore it cant happen.

I wouldn't say it can't happen - if God/Jesus do exist, then it is certainly within the realm of their abilities, after all. I'm just saying there's no good evidence that it ever has happened.

I retract my statement. There is no set definition of deity and no authority on the matter, a sparrow has greater powers than you so the terminology is quite loose.

More specifically, I'd say that a sparrow has greater powers than me in some respects - it can fly, and is certainly a better singer than I am - while I have greater powers than it does in other respects - such as physical strength and intelligence.

You need to be struck of a horse, angels coming down from heaven and signs usually given to special people.

God is not real because you cannot perform a scientific experiment on Him and the evidence is not what you call sufficient.

More accurately, I do not believe God is real because I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me that he is.

It's up to me to decide how to have a relationship with the dragon. Ok, i guess ill throw out confessing sins part.

Entirely your prerogative.

No we dont. Terminology is opinion based, i have come to this conclusion when i considered your reply about deity and how to use that terminology.

The trouble with that idea is that when two people have differing opinions, it means they are incapable of having a clear discussion.

But we don't have a definition of oyster that everyone agrees to.

Ah, but we do. I can describe it and point out certain genetic markers. Anything that has these genetic markers is an oyster, anything without those genetic markers is something else.

Exactly. Kylie does not find oysters tasty, so there is no set terminology on the word deity.

No, Kylie does not find oysters tasty, so subjective opinion can not be used as objective fact.

There is none, the dictionary is useless here. The experts definition is not considered and everone has an opinion on the matter. We are doomed!

Your theatrics are not needed.

If you'd like to propose a definition for Deity, we can try to come to an agreement. Not need to be a smart alec about things.

Your dragon is not an alien however q from star trek was used as a burden of proof. All good, for now on fictional TV shows will be allowable for a proof of burden. You set the precedent and i think its refreshing and not a disaster.

I used Q to illustrate the idea that something that is not considered a deity can still have the attirbutes of a deity.

Cool. Im going to throw away the others definition and this is now the offical definition. Wierd though, i typed tgis sentence into google and nothing came up...what ever.

Do you disagree with this as a definition?

No criteria can be defined as we saw with deity.

I never said that no criteria can ever be defined, did I? Are you going to continue to misrepresent my posts?

According to the fermi paradox line of, the Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial aliens, or at least their probes.

In comparison we already have a messenger of Gods word.

What do you think?

I think we have people who claim to be messengers of God's word, and we also have people who claim to speak for aliens.

How do you define the thing(s) you lack belief in ie what terminology for deity will you accept, that you reject a belief in?

A supreme being, a being who created the world and desires worship.

 

[the iconoclast]

I think it may be a possibility, but I am not aware of the exact details of your situation. I have not proceeded assuming that this scenario reflects your experience, however.



Quite possibly, although I wouldn't expect it to happen.



Woah, hang on there, I hope you aren't saying that the Dragon can't possibly have the qualities I've described.



I wouldn't say it can't happen - if God/Jesus do exist, then it is certainly within the realm of their abilities, after all. I'm just saying there's no good evidence that it ever has happened.



More specifically, I'd say that a sparrow has greater powers than me in some respects - it can fly, and is certainly a better singer than I am - while I have greater powers than it does in other respects - such as physical strength and intelligence.



More accurately, I do not believe God is real because I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me that he is.



Entirely your prerogative.



The trouble with that idea is that when two people have differing opinions, it means they are incapable of having a clear discussion.



Ah, but we do. I can describe it and point out certain genetic markers. Anything that has these genetic markers is an oyster, anything without those genetic markers is something else.



No, Kylie does not find oysters tasty, so subjective opinion can not be used as objective fact.



Your theatrics are not needed.

If you'd like to propose a definition for Deity, we can try to come to an agreement. Not need to be a smart alec about things.



I used Q to illustrate the idea that something that is not considered a deity can still have the attirbutes of a deity.



Do you disagree with this as a definition?



I never said that no criteria can ever be defined, did I? Are you going to continue to misrepresent my posts?



I think we have people who claim to be messengers of God's word, and we also have people who claim to speak for aliens.



A supreme being, a being who created the world and desires worship.

Hey hey

I had a bit to ponder things and have decided that a belief in your dragon is comparable to a belief in the Christian God. When we follow the Christian faith formula for both entities we get a result.

I had an experience from God through the Holy Spirit by accepting Jesus as my saviour. I am convinced there is a God.

You had an experience from the dragon by confessing your sins and accepting this dragon as your saviour.
You are convinced this non deity dragon exists and you would not make up such a thing. This things exists to you.

It is indeed comparable, we both had an experience and we both are not making it up. I therefore became a christian and you therefore remained an atheist who is blessed by the dragon.

The comparison illustrates a result.

What say you kylie?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey

I had a bit to ponder things and have decided that a belief in your dragon is comparable to a belief in the Christian God. When we follow the Christian faith formula for both entities we get a result.

I had an experience from God through the Holy Spirit by accepting Jesus as my saviour. I am convinced there is a God.

You had an experience from the dragon by confessing your sins and accepting this dragon as your saviour.
You are convinced this non deity dragon exists and you would not make up such a thing. This things exists to you.

It is indeed comparable, we both had an experience and we both are not making it up. I therefore became a christian and you therefore remained an atheist who is blessed by the dragon.

The comparison illustrates a result.

What say you kylie?

Cheers

So if we agree that the same method - opening one's heart to the entity in question, be it God or Dragon - is a valid way to find the truth, have you opened your heart to the Dragon?

 

[the iconoclast]

So if we agree that the same method - opening one's heart to the entity in question, be it God or Dragon - is a valid way to find the truth, have you opened your heart to the Dragon?

Hey hey

I have already opened my heart to Jesus and (after much investigation) i have no other reason to entertain such a suggestion to open my heart to your dragon.

You have convinced me that you believe there is an invisible dragon who you confess your sins to and you used the Christian faith method to achieve this.

Please excuse me however i will have to politely and respectfully decline the offer.
I still prefer Jesus better than your dragon also i have a relationship with Him.

Im waiting on my friend to try it out and get back to me - he is atheist too. However he thinks your whole argument and experience is madeup, so i dont know the result yet.

I do not see any reason to doubt you when you suggest you believe there is a dragon in your backyard - you would not sabotage your own integrity, you are honest and you would not lie.

So there we are, the comparison illustrates a result. We both got one by utilizing the Christian faith formula.

Case is closed.
1 point to you - wow 2 points to zero. Im going to need to up my game

This dragon is going to be used as a precedent for future conversations. This is going to make things very interesting.

Do you want to choose the next subject or should i?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey

I have already opened my heart to Jesus and (after much investigation) i have no other reason to entertain such a suggestion to open my heart to your dragon.

You have convinced me that you believe there is an invisible dragon who you confess your sins to and you used the Christian faith method to achieve this.

Please excuse me however i will have to politely and respectfully decline the offer.
I still prefer Jesus better than your dragon also i have a relationship with Him.

Im waiting on my friend to try it out and get back to me - he is atheist too. However he thinks your whole argument and experience is madeup, so i dont know the result yet.

I do not see any reason to doubt you when you suggest you believe there is a dragon in your backyard - you would not sabotage your own integrity, you are honest and you would not lie.

So there we are, the comparison illustrates a result. We both got one by utilizing the Christian faith formula.

Case is closed.
1 point to you - wow 2 points to zero. Im going to need to up my game

This dragon is going to be used as a precedent for future conversations. This is going to make things very interesting.

Do you want to choose the next subject or should i?

Cheers

Of course, you could always open your heart to the Dragon and see if what you experience with the dragon is comparable to what you have experienced with Jesus.

In any case, I'll let you choose the next topic of discussion.

 

[the iconoclast]

Declaring victory in an internet debate is a sure sign of defeat.

Hey hey

It was too premature to claim victory. @Kylie won that point!

She got a result by using the Christian faith formula to an invisible dragon that resides in her backyard. She is being honest and would not make up such a thing!

How r things?

 

[the iconoclast]

Of course, you could always open your heart to the Dragon and see if what you experience with the dragon is comparable to what you have experienced with Jesus.

In any case, I'll let you choose the next topic of discussion.

I could but i wont. Your dragon sounds cool, however i need more than what it can offer.

Marvellous. Ill choose the next subject matter, give me a bit and ill see what fun can be had.

 

[Kylie]

I could but i wont. Your dragon sounds cool, however i need more than what it can offer.

How do you know what it has to offer if you don't try?

 

[the iconoclast]

How do you know what it has to offer if you don't try?

Hey hey

Fair enough, preach to me my dear. What can this dragon offer me that i should consider?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

To get the proof that there is a dragon in her backyard, i must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour.

Hey hey kylie.

While im waiting for you to earnestly advocate (.eg to preach) this magnificent dragon who you confess your sins to and which blesses you.

I was reminded of something you have said in the past.

Yes you have. You've said that the way to get proof is to open your heart. Opening your heart can never give objective fact, only subjective opinion.

How do these 2 statements support each other?

Cheers you diamond and i hope all is well.

 

[Kylie]

I thought you'd said you wanted to move onto a different topic. Have you changed your mind?

 

[the iconoclast]

How do you know what it has to offer if you don't try?

Hey hey i did want to move on. I came on yesterday and see that you presented a new question to me.

I do not mind.

So, preach to me my dear. What can this dragon offer me that i should consider?

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey i did want to move on. I came on yesterday and see that you presented a new question to me.

I do not mind.

So, preach to me my dear. What can this dragon offer me that i should consider?

Cheers

You'll have to speak or otherwise communicate with the Dragon to learn the full extent of the Dragon's capabilities. I'm not privy to everything the dragon can do.

 

[the iconoclast]

You'll have to speak or otherwise communicate with the Dragon to learn the full extent of the Dragon's capabilities. I'm not privy to everything the dragon can do.

Hey hey my atheist friend

Lets hang here for a bit. Are u suggesting that i must seek out the dragon? The dragon does not come to me?

Cheers

 

[Ophiolite]

So, preach to me my dear. What can this dragon offer me that i should consider?

When it comes to Life I hope you would agree that it is important to get the balance right, to have an appropriate sense of scale. And when it comes to scales then having a dragon on your side puts you ahead of the game.