Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HI SOMEONE12, FEDERALE

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    It just so happened that our points of view coincided which is rarely the case. Exposing your lack of sense all along in the process makes it all worth it as a net profit.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    davdah, why RN does the arguing on your behalf?

    That doesn't serve you well because she offhandedly disregards logic and thus defeats the purpose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Read back along this thread and you'll find davdah making his statements about a Creator and creations and accordingly offered brilliantly profuse backing to his premise thereby putting indefensible rationale to iperson's and S12's claims in the negative.

    Iperson tried in vain to reason out, but eventually sputtered off to her eventual defeat. Forget about S12 because this topic is too complex for his mentally-retarded state.

    Yet in all of this, you're right, you didn't state anything in the negative (or in the positive) putting in question where you're situated in this debate. Therefore, you can't impose any obligation on anyone to give justification either way.

    Yours is genuinely a straw man fallacy in logic personified as far as the point of contention here is concerned.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    Yes, RN, you are correct.

    In this particular case davdah makes positive assertion so he has to back it up.

    On my side I did NOT make a negative assertion (i did not assert that God doesn't exist), ergo no obligation to back it up.

    Nor am i obliged to disprove davdah's positive assertion. Why would i want to do that?

    It is his task to back up his view since he is one who made assertion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    The only universal rule of argument I know is that which the victory over an opponent is the primary goal by establishing the burden of proof and mustering evidence for such a position that is devoid of weaknesses and not easily attacked where either side protects beliefs or self-interests in rationale dialog in a level playing field and in the same footing. The burden is on either side equally who makes either a positive or negative claim. Putting in advance an unequal and undue burden on one side to the disadvantage of the other is a direct violation of such rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:

    The video was as I said. The point I was making wasn't about the movie's content. That's a given. It was the reason for posting it and waiting for enough comments to be made before passing judgment on viewers intellectual ability. Why was it posted being so full of inaccuracies if not for the reason I suspect?

    Ok, well, you choose to buy the premise of ironchariotes.org, fine. I'd rather debate an issue minus the cut-n-paste nonsense. When asked, 'What do you think'. The emphasis is on you, not the mouse or [ctrl] V.

    I've never said you 'must' believe. That's to the individual and at the core of free will given to us. You can be righteous or a godless heathen, it's up to each of us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    davdah, there was no video , there were videos.
    I left without comments some, pointed as credible one where Feynman was interviewed and referred to one posted by iperson as a hoax (which didn't surprise me , knowing what the usual content of iperson's posts are).
    And ,sure enough, i just did a little research on it and found out that apparently, i am not the only one criticising it as a pseudoscience. Of course it didn't prevent it from grossing over $10 mils.

    As far as logical fallacy and rules of argument that necessiate one to back up positive statement rather than obliging others to disprove it , well , that is just a universal rule or argument. Just because something is posted on ironchariotes.org (or anywhere by anyone) doesn't necessarily invalidate it's valid parts concerning logical fallacy and necessity to back up a positive statement .
    It is such a well known imperative of any argument based on logic that you do yourself disservice by denying it.

    Finally, this is not about what i believe , stop twisting and spinning things around so you can avoid addressing the subject matter of discussion.
    This is about YOU saying that YOU believe certain things and claiming furthermore that to believe what YOU believe in is to be righteous while not beleiving what YOU believe is to be a heathen.
    And this coming from YOU who also not so long ago was somewhat less than happy with Einstein who, allegedly, made you feel inferior with his Cosmic vs Lay Man religious theory.
    So, i guess YOU also hold yourself subject to different set of standards than Einstein, so you can call anyone who doesn't share your views heathens, while it is unacceptable for others imply that your own religious experience may be less than cosmic. Isn't it ironic, davdah, isn't it? Hmm

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    One prerequisite is required. In order to have it carry any weight, the recognition of it being inspired writing needs to be accepted. Without that, it's taken as Ip said, fables and stories. Granted, truth abounds but it needs connected to those facts irrefutable. For example. There are passages that speak to keeping people sick apart from the flock. When was contagion discovered by modern science? There is also the issue of reconciling time and those first seven days. That takes a little more explanation than sneezes spreading the common cold, but it can be done. The trouble with atheists is they have no explanation except to say they have none. Offer up the connecting dots and usually they'll look as such.


    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    At this junction I would like to recommend a book that I read titled: Job's Body by Dean Juhan. If I may, I will quote some of his work later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Sorry I can't provide excerpts of the book it would create a copyright issue. But the book is available on Amazon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    It wasn't so much a question as direction of strategy. Believers believe and unbelievers don't. To use the basis of faith outside the circle usually creates mounting hostility not conducive to the proper goal. Give them what they do understand and make the connection. From there, an ally may result which results in.

    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Right you are!

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    One prerequisite is required. In order to have it carry any weight, the recognition of it being inspired writing needs to be accepted. Without that, it's taken as Ip said, fables and stories. Granted, truth abounds but it needs connected to those facts irrefutable. For example. There are passages that speak to keeping people sick apart from the flock. When was contagion discovered by modern science? There is also the issue of reconciling time and those first seven days. That takes a little more explanation than sneezes spreading the common cold, but it can be done. The trouble with atheists is they have no explanation except to say they have none. Offer up the connecting dots and usually they'll look as such.


    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    At this junction I would like to recommend a book that I read titled: Job's Body by Dean Juhan. If I may, I will quote some of his work later.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    Is the question addressed to me, or to the ilw.com's pseudo-atheist?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rough Neighbor
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Arguments do exist to support the atheist position. None were given though. On the other side of he aisle the positions taken were a bit wrinkled.

    You can't argue the case using biblical quotes. That goes nowhere since the book itself is being questioned. It's too easily defeated and dismissed since it was written by men and to this day not understood. It's like arguing over two recipes when you have no idea what the ingredients are. With this being primarily a female exchange had to mention something they might understand, cooking & cleaning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Science means knowledge, and true science always agrees with the observable evidence. Scientific research continues to unfold the wonders and mysteries of our universe. Interestingly, there is one book that has anticipated many of these scientific facts.

    That book is the Bible.

    In our zeal for the truth of Scripture, we must never forget its purpose which is to equip us to do good. As far as I'm concerned, I do not study God's Word simply to increase my knowledge or to prepare me to win arguments. I study it so that I will know how to do God's work. My knowledge of God's Word is not useful unless it strengthens my faith and leads me to do good.

    This is my own personal guideline. I may inspire others, yet I don't impose it on anyone, even as I reserve that sovereign spot about me when such personal conviction is being questioned.

    Many of scientific facts embodied within biblical verses were penned centuries before they were discovered. Scientific foreknowledge found only in the Bible offers one more piece to the collective proof that the Bible is truly the inspired Word of the Creator.

    The Bible is not a collection of stories, fables, myths, or merely human ideas about God. It doesn't claim to be a book of history or science. It is not a human book. Through the Holy Spirit, God revealed his person and plan to certain believers, who wrote down his message for his people. This process is known as inspiration. The writers wrote from their own personal, historical, and cultural contexts. Although they used their own minds, talents, language, and style, they wrote what God wanted them to write. Scripture is completely trustworthy because God was in control of its writing. Its words are entirely authoritative. The Bible is "God-breathed."

    Contemporary books need to be edited and updated periodically simply because their relevance and content go out of date or style. Biblical chapters and verses don't need to be edited, revised, or amended to get in cadence with the march of human advancement. Its truth is as fresh and crisp now as since it was written.

    Given this as my basis for my arguments, who could win?

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
    I am a genius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you are a genius then why do you question my being a genius?

    You are a complete fool, koller.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kollerkrot
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldE:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
    Well then, what have you accomplished. How many books have you written? How many inventions can you call your own? Let's hear let's find out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't have to write any books, get Pulitzer or Nobel prize or invent anything to be a genius i am.

    If Leonardo died without writing a single page and making a single sketch he would still be a genius.

    To be a genius and for genius to do something to be recognized as one is not one and the same thing, but i guess one has to be a genius to know it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Somewhere over the rainbow...
    Something awful...

    I am a genius.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kollerkrot:
    Well then, what have you accomplished. How many books have you written? How many inventions can you call your own? Let's hear let's find out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't have to write any books, get Pulitzer or Nobel prize or invent anything to be a genius i am.

    If Leonardo died without writing a single page and making a single sketch he would still be a genius.

    To be a genius and for genius to do something to be recognized as one is not one and the same thing, but i guess one has to be a genius to know it.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldE
    replied
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just curious to know why you think you have superior intelligence to any members on the forum? Sometimes, people who think they are superior are really inferior with huge ego problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Why? Mainly because i am a genius.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X