Originally posted by googlefudge And here we have the proof.
RJHinds can't actually defend his position so he just insults the people making the counter arguments.
i dont know why but i always imagine rj as a large bespectacled american stood in his brown office wearing a brown 1970's suit smoking a cigar and drinking bourbon while he speaks his post out loud to his pale nervous also bespectacled secretary (who is also from the 1970's) who then types it onto the web via her really old chunky first gen desk-top green screened computer.......they then make love on his desk of course, but that parts just for me, not you guys.
oh i forgot the most important thing, he is bald but has really large sideburns and his suit has elbow patches.
(i know its not true rj and im not making fun, i just like to give people i write to faces)
Originally posted by robbie carrobie you have erroneously introduced concepts not explicitly stated by the OP as a rebuttal
to his post, they are your logical fallacies, suck it up and behave yourself.
if you don't understand it, then I guess we have to just accept that you are incapable of knowing what you are talking about when you say “ logical fallacy”.
If you claim to understand it but still insist that I have stated a logical fallacy, then prove it to us by stating which type ( out of the list provided by the link – just click “List of Fallacies: “ ) of logical fallacy I have uttered and how it is a logical fallacy.
Originally posted by RJHinds Don't have time right now. I have to leave to go to the pharmacy
to pick up medicine for my wife and do some other things. Anyway,
googlfudge is too hard headed to take criticism for he apparently
thinks he knows more than anyone who has faith in God. To him
and Proper Knob, a person has to be an idiot to believe in God.
No, not at all...
I just think you are an idiot.
Evidence for which you provide daily.
I don't extrapolate from you to all other theists.
Believing based on faith is stupid and immoral but that doesn't make the person doing
it stupid or immoral.
Originally posted by RJHinds Don't have time right now. I have to leave to go to the pharmacy
to pick up medicine for my wife and do some other things. Anyway,
googlfudge is too hard headed to take criticism for he apparently
thinks he knows more than anyone who has faith in God. To him
and Proper Knob, a person has to be an idiot to believe in God.
Ok, fair enough. But if you then make 10 more posts to this and other topics without answering this question, we can conclude that the reason is not that you don't have the time but that you don't actually have an argument.
if you don't understand it, then I guess we have to just accept that you are incapable of knowing what you are talking about when you say “ logical fallacy”.
If you claim to understand it but still insist that I have stated a logical fallacy, then prove it to ...[text shortened]... lick “List of Fallacies: “ ) of logical fallacy I have uttered and how it is a logical fallacy.
Originally posted by RJHinds Don't have time right now. I have to leave to go to the pharmacy
to pick up medicine for my wife and do some other things. Anyway,
googlfudge is too hard headed to take criticism for he apparently
thinks he knows more than anyone who has faith in God. To him
and Proper Knob, a person has to be an idiot to believe in God.
you might want to bring some valium back for some of there's guys! twithead might need a hole pack
Originally posted by RJHinds Don't have time right now. I have to leave to go to the pharmacy
to pick up medicine for my wife and do some other things. Anyway,
googlfudge is too hard headed to take criticism for he apparently
thinks he knows more than anyone who has faith in God. To him
and Proper Knob, a person has to be an idiot to believe in God.
Originally posted by googlefudge humy's post does not contain logical fallacies because IT ASKED QUESTIONS rather than made arguments.
Good ones actually.
For his post to contain logical fallacies he would have to have made flawed logical arguments.
Instead he asked questions designed to expose weaknesses in the arguments of the OP.
Thus humy's posts not only didn't but couldn't contain logical fallacies.
And as I said was right on point.
I don't think we disagree.
What I wondered was whether humy's line of thinking was 'logically fallacial' (if there is such a phrase) from the perspective of what tim88 wrote, rather than what you presumed he meant. humys post obviously did not contain any logical fallacies.
I then set out how someone might construe this line of reasoning as being logically fallacial. Needless to say (and I hope you realised this), I don't believe or support a word of the above.
I do, however, remain of the view that the weakness of tim88s statement, taken at face value, is the ambiguity of the language. It makes God look as if he views human life as if we were characters in a Dan Brown novel.
Scientific Facts in the Bible
25 Apr '12 15:251 edit
Back to Top