Show me definitive proof your religious text isn't entirely made up.

[Desert Snake]

So, can you answer the question you acknowledge now?

Huh? Why would I be interested in your presentation of that concept, so, no, it's irrelevant without an argument.

 

[McBell]

Well-put. That was blatantly self-contradictory.

I notice that certain members have a really difficult time keeping up.
I am seriously hoping it is because english is their fifth or sixth language.

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing is stopping you from making claims.

I am just asking you to be specific with your criticism so it is possible to provide clarification.

 

[McBell]

Huh? Why would I be interested in your presentation of that concept, so, no, it's irrelevant without an argument.

running from the discussion tail tucked does not help your credibility

 

[McBell]

I am just asking you to be specific with your criticism so it is possible to provide clarification.

I wouldn't hold me breath were I you.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am just asking you to be specific with your criticism so it is possible to provide clarification.

No; you don't know the subject, and are trying to argue something that you know nothing about. Why, I really have no idea

 

[leibowde84]

Huh? Why would I be interested in your presentation of that concept, so, no, it's irrelevant without an argument.

OK, since you refuse to be respectful, I'll just assume. My claim you are referring to is that an "argument from ignorance", no matter what the issue at hand, is ALWAYS fraudulent, as it is a logical fallacy providing nothing more than the illusion of support.

 

[Desert Snake]

See, this makes no sense. I have acknowledged making many claims. I am simply pointing out that a question is not a claim.

The question is meaningless; present anything you want.

 

[leibowde84]

No; you don't know the subject, and are trying to argue something that you know nothing about. Why, I really have no idea

Because, like a child folding their arms and screaming "no", you are frightened to actually clarify.

 

[Desert Snake]

OK, since you refuse to be respectful, I'll just assume. My claim you are referring to is that an "argument from ignorance", no matter what the issue at hand, is ALWAYS fraudulent, as it is a logical fallacy providing nothing more than the illusion of support.

Therefore?

 

[leibowde84]

The question is meaningless; present anything you want.

See previous comment.

 

[allfoak]

Or... Just take them with a grain of salt like every other historical text. They are incorrect from time to time.

Historically, they are incorrect most of the time.
They are written as allegory using an historical narrative.
They are not intended to be historically accurate.

 

[Desert Snake]

See previous comment.

Yeah, that's not an argument. It's an arbitrary statement.

 

[McBell]

Yeah, that's not an argument. It's an arbitrary statement.

that is not an argument

 

[leibowde84]

Therefore?

This, the god of the gaps, being an argument from ignorance, is fraudulent. The mere absence of an alternative theory or proof that any theory is false in no way provides support for said theory. Pretty simple stuff, logically speaking.

 

[McBell]

This, the god of the gaps, being an argument from ignorance, is fraudulent. The mere absence of an alternative theory or proof that any theory is false in no way provides support for said theory. Pretty simple stuff, logically speaking.

You assume that member is looking for honest discussion.

 

[Desert Snake]

This, the god of the gaps, being an argument from ignorance, is fraudulent. The mere absence of an alternative theory or proof that any theory is false in no way provides support for said theory. Pretty simple stuff, logically speaking.

This is a strawman, your arguing against your own fictional opposing position.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah, that's not an argument. It's an arbitrary statement.

My claim you are referring to is that an "argument from ignorance", no matter what the issue at hand, is ALWAYS fraudulent, as it is a logical fallacy providing nothing more than the illusion of support.

 

[Desert Snake]

My claim you are referring to is that an "argument from ignorance", no matter what the issue at hand, is ALWAYS fraudulent, as it is a logical fallacy providing nothing more than the illusion of support.

Therefore?

 

[leibowde84]

This is a strawman, your arguing against your own fictional opposing position.

So, you are going back on claims you've made previously? Because, I am happy to copy and paste them here for your reference. Or, are you just "copping-out"?