Originally posted by FMFso Pilates words are not conducive to. . . what was it you claimed again? 'needed by people trying to establish a breakaway religion'. Why are they there then?
It's interesting that you have chosen Pilate's words from that supposed conversation ~ and not Jesus' supposed words ~ to try to counter what I have suggested.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou appear to be pretending you have not read the passage that contains the supposed exchange between the two men. I suggest you start with that when you "take time to research [your] material" before making or not making a "truth claim" about the Biblical account of what was supposedly said.
so Pilates words are not conducive to. . . what was it you claimed again? 'needed by people trying to establish a breakaway religion'. Why are they there then?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps early Christians were not seeking to base their new religion on the words of Pilate. Just a thought. Bear it in mind when you weigh up your possible "truth claim". 😕
so Pilates words are not conducive to. . . what was it you claimed again? 'needed by people trying to establish a breakaway religion'. Why are they there then?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust for the sake of argument, let's consider (3) unknown between true or false. Since the events
the absence of evidence is your term, your evaluation and your assertion. You corroborate it or suffer the same fate as your fellow balloonist, FMF. I would just like to point out your stance is a logical fallacy as is your friends. Its an appeal to what may not be known rather than what is. I suggest you read the following.
Argument from igno ...[text shortened]... peals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Shoddy Andy, very shoddy.
described in the Book of Genesis are implausible (by any reasonable person's standards) more weight
must be given to (2) false. The Book of Genesis is based on myth and legend, and you have offered
no valid evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is imaginary, i.e., fiction.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieReread this carefully and you'll see that you are the shoddy one, not me.
the absence of evidence is your term, your evaluation and your assertion. You corroborate it or suffer the same fate as your fellow balloonist, FMF. I would just like to point out your stance is a logical fallacy as is your friends. Its an appeal to what may not be known rather than what is. I suggest you read the following.
Argument from igno ...[text shortened]... peals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Shoddy Andy, very shoddy.
Originally posted by FMFHe copied from Wikipedia. Here's the paragraph immediately following:
Ouch! He still has 7 or 8 minutes in which he could go back and alter the post. Ha ha, quite funny really. Ouch! 😀
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor --"prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions."
Originally posted by HandyAndyOf course its from wikipedia, it looks nothing like my lyrical poetic style and fits the fallacious arguments that you and your sideflick, FMF the unsubstantiated one have been making.
He copied from Wikipedia. Here's the paragraph immediately following:
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; howev ...[text shortened]... ment's proponent. See also Occam's razor --"prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions."
2 edits
Originally posted by HandyAndyImplausible again is your evaluation and must be substantiated by you. Myth is also your evaluation for which you have offered not a single iota of evidence. 'Reasonable persons standards', is an appeal to popular opinion, e.g fifty Elvis fans cannot be wrong etc etc and is fallacious.
Just for the sake of argument, let's consider (3) unknown between true or false. Since the events
described in the Book of Genesis are implausible (by any reasonable person's standards) more weight
must be given to (2) false. The Book of Genesis is based on myth and legend, and you have offered
no valid evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is imaginary, i.e., fiction.
Do you ever stop to think what you are actually saying, your opinions are meaningless, do you understand, without substantiation they are meaningless. The argument of ignorance you have attempted to utilize is fallacious, why? because you cannot offer a single meaningful corroborated fact to substantiate it and once again the words of Finnegan ring true,
This is an opinion piece and contains no new information, if it contains any information at all. As such, the hot air is entirely wasted except to sustain the self esteem of those with fixed opinions wanting to escape the unpleasant world of fact checkers
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is your life story.
This is an opinion piece and contains no new information, if it contains any information at all. As such, the hot air is entirely wasted except to sustain the self esteem of those with fixed opinions wanting to escape the unpleasant world of fact checkers