Rob Perkins wrote:

And, here's where I get off the ride.

You can get yourself off whereever you like.

If I can't explain my point of
view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.

We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.

Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.

Any fallacies you think you see are the result of the difference between our
two languages. I'm using English. You're using something else. As I
wrote before, as long as we're not using the same language, communication
isn't possible.

And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.

The goalposts are where they've always been. You're just trying to redefine
the language - and therefore the discussion - and are perturbed about being
denied this sophistic ploy.

I don't really see that I can add anything more to this game - until/unless
you submit to the use of English - and so you'll just have to play with
yourself.

- Andrew