2 ms·
> This is just semantics. Not really, because the difference is rather significant here. > It's not as you describe though, because the point you miss is that
by tivert 3y ago
> This is just semantics.
Not really, because the difference is rather significant here.
> It's not as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference.
There's that little mental game I was referring to.
> The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.
There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago> Not really, because the difference is rather significant here. No, it really isn't. It's 100% semantics. The context makes the meaning clear. But how about you explain what you think the rather significant difference is to progress the discussion? So it isn't just is too/is not which it seems to be becoming. > There's that little mental game I was referring to. Sure, an accusation without basis. > There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it. No, I get it, and my reply made that clear. It seemed to have passed you by, possibly because you seem hyper-focused on semantics. As an aside, are you religious yourself? I typically only see these lines of argument from people that are and feel defensive.