| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Li Mu Bai" |
| Date: |
04 Dec 2003 10:06:58 PM |
| Object: |
Question for angelicusrex |
Show me evidence that angels exist.
.
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
04 Dec 2003 10:16:10 PM |
|
|
"Li Mu Bai" <green@goddess.net> wrote in news:vt013smbmc1mc1
@corp.supernews.com:
Show me evidence that angels exist.
They won the world series last year. Isn't that evidence enough?
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baruch" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 05:17:23 PM |
|
|
Hi, Li Mu Bai:
"Li Mu Bai" <green@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vt013smbmc1mc1@corp.supernews.com...
Show me evidence that angels exist.
What would you consider "evidence" that angels exist? For example, let's
say I had anecdotal evidence to support the idea that angels exist - an
angel story, or several of them that actually happened to me. Would you
accept that as "evidence"? Probably not. Why would you believe what I had
to say? You don't know me, and for all you know I might have some devious
plot to convince people angels exist. Of course, for all you know, I might
be an angel...
So, how can *anyone* provide evidence of the existence of angels on a
newsgroup? It's all just text. No matter how convincing my text might be,
it's just words someone typed, a complete stranger who may or may not be
anything like who he says he is (might not even be telling the truth about
gender, for that matter).
I suppose you might ask for me (or someone) to send an angel over to you to
introduce itself - hi, I'm Gabriel, and I'll be your server for this
evening... oh, wrong setting...
So, what would it take? I can't think of much other than somehow causing an
angel to pop up wherever you are (an angel would know that, of course), and
identify itself. Then you'd either believe in angels, or possibly begin to
doubt your senses. I don't know angels that do any tricks for me (or
others). Maybe you could just ask an angel to show itself for you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Baruch" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 05:18:03 PM |
|
|
Ooh... sorry, Saint. Just noticed the Subject...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
04 Dec 2003 10:58:15 PM |
|
|
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the argument,
you show me evidence angels don't exist.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right to do
so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough "evidence" for my
personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the only way an angel will
show up in your life, when you believe in them.
If you are going to scorn, cajole, berate and pooh-pooh other people's
beliefs, they aren't going to want to help you.
Now. I can help you find your angels. Read my book at iUniverse.Com
"Speaking of Angels." Or my website at http://www.saintalbanstudio.com But
if you are going to use these things to scorn me or rake me over your
peculiar coals, then I'll just say "forget you."
As to further evidence of their existence, I point you to the Koran, The
Torah, the Talmud, the Key of Solomon, the Book of Enoch, the Kabala, the
Bible, the Baghadvadghita, etc. etc. Many people believe in angels and give
evidence of them in their lives from ancient through modern times. You can
either weigh their words and decide for your self, or you can simply close
off your mind and just forget the whole thing...But to those who ask
haughtily for miracles and signs, I say unto you, none shall be given.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <green@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vt013smbmc1mc1@corp.supernews.com...
Show me evidence that angels exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wolf333" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 03:40:30 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bqp396$25v9ar$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the argument,
you show me evidence angels don't exist.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right to
do
so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough "evidence" for my
personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the only way an angel will
show up in your life, when you believe in them.
If you are going to scorn, cajole, berate and pooh-pooh other people's
beliefs, they aren't going to want to help you.
Now. I can help you find your angels. Read my book at iUniverse.Com
"Speaking of Angels." Or my website at http://www.saintalbanstudio.com But
if you are going to use these things to scorn me or rake me over your
peculiar coals, then I'll just say "forget you."
As to further evidence of their existence, I point you to the Koran, The
Torah, the Talmud, the Key of Solomon, the Book of Enoch, the Kabala, the
Bible, the Baghadvadghita, etc. etc. Many people believe in angels and
give
evidence of them in their lives from ancient through modern times. You can
either weigh their words and decide for your self, or you can simply close
off your mind and just forget the whole thing...But to those who ask
haughtily for miracles and signs, I say unto you, none shall be given.
In other words "I can't prove it, but it's true!"
--
"Everyone gather 'round! It's time for pastel-tinted hairy balls with salsa
verde!"
Michael Wolfe
aa #1912
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 04:30:52 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bqp396$25v9ar$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
if you are going to use these things to scorn me or rake me over
your
peculiar coals, then I'll just say "forget you."
There's no need to be so defensive. I'm actually quite interested in
your beliefs. I thinnk it's important to understand extraordinary
beliefs, with or without evidence. I think it would be fair to call
you on "expert" on this topic, which is why I asked you about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 10:33:30 PM |
|
|
I plonked you because you sounded to me like you could care less what I
believe and seem to want a flame war. How you got around my plonking I do
not know. So at least you are persistent.
I do not like to be berated by scathing one sentence comments. If you have a
legitimate question, I will seek to answer it. But if all you are going to
do is demand "proof of angels." Sorry. Better men than me have tried to
proof angels' existence. I am no expert. I am only an experiencer.
Saint
"Li Mu Bai" <green_goddess@usenet.net> wrote in message
news:vt0njo5aej2935@corp.supernews.com...
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bqp396$25v9ar$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
if you are going to use these things to scorn me or rake me over
your
peculiar coals, then I'll just say "forget you."
There's no need to be so defensive. I'm actually quite interested in
your beliefs. I thinnk it's important to understand extraordinary
beliefs, with or without evidence. I think it would be fair to call
you on "expert" on this topic, which is why I asked you about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 11:08:01 PM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote
I plonked you because [...]
Someone realy should explain to you what that means.
.
|
|
|
| User: "t_naismith" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 05:15:57 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" wrote:
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> ironically wrote:
I plonked you because [...]
Someone realy should explain to you what that means.
Let one of his 'angels' clue him in?
T.N. (not from around here but, could be from a.r.w.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 02:35:04 PM |
|
|
"t_naismith" <trans-singularity@paraphysics.net> wrote in message
It means I KILLFILED the person. And that means she was in my little
kill-file. Somehow though, she got out, most likely by using another
address. But I can see that this doesn't concern those of you who prefer to
make asses of yourselves by giving glib, one line comments about things you
do not even understand.
Angels don't give information on kill files. But I know idiots like you know
what a kill-file is...PLONK!
Saint
.
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 01:37:02 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02tc$26rhek$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Angels don't give information on kill files.
Why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
09 Dec 2003 04:05:23 PM |
|
|
"Li Mu Bai" <goddess@green.net> wrote in message news:<vt8ah4ornjbvfc@corp.supernews.com>...
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02tc$26rhek$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Angels don't give information on kill files.
Why not?
Because you can get it a lot easier from your ISP.
Saint
.
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
10 Dec 2003 03:57:08 AM |
|
|
On 9 Dec 2003 14:05:23 -0800, (Anatid Bonecki)
wrote:
"Li Mu Bai" <goddess@green.net> wrote in message news:<vt8ah4ornjbvfc@corp.supernews.com>...
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02tc$26rhek$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Angels don't give information on kill files.
Why not?
Because you can get it a lot easier from your ISP.
I prefer to get my information from Angels.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 10:39:03 PM |
|
|
In article <br02tc$26rhek$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de>, angelicusrex
<whisperindave@msn.com> wrote:
"t_naismith" <trans-singularity@paraphysics.net> wrote in message
It means I KILLFILED the person. And that means she was in my little
kill-file. Somehow though, she got out, most likely by using another
address. But I can see that this doesn't concern those of you who prefer to
make asses of yourselves by giving glib, one line comments about things you
do not even understand.
Angels don't give information on kill files. But I know idiots like you know
what a kill-file is...PLONK!
Speaking of kill-files and changing addresses, how the ***** did you get
out of the bit-bucket?
.
|
|
|
| User: "t_naismith" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 11:34:18 PM |
|
|
angelicusrex <whisperindave@msn.com> babbled:
"t_naismith" wrote something davie's angels told him to snip?
It means I KILLFILED the person.
No, context-snipper; it means that "angelicusrex" blocked the
sending-address of another poster. Not the person, dumbass.
And that means she was in my little
kill-file. Somehow though, she got out, most likely by using another
address.
The folks who've realized for some time that which you are only
now becoming dimly aware of, (ie., a change of sending address),
are laughing. They are not laughing _with_ you, 'angelicker'.
But I can see that this doesn't concern those of you who prefer to
make asses of yourselves by giving glib, one line comments about things
you
do not even understand.
Oh, the irony ...
Angels don't give information on kill files. But I know idiots like you
know
what a kill-file is...PLONK!
What do you imagine that your imaginary angels do give
information on, dumbass? Have they 'whispered' to you
about your impending return to the place of white coats
and colorful pills in small paper cups yet?
T.N.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatid Bonecki" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
09 Dec 2003 04:04:19 PM |
|
|
"t_naismith" <trans-singularity@paraphysics.net> wrote in message
No, context-snipper; it means that "angelicusrex" blocked the
sending-address of another poster. Not the person, dumbass.
Straining at semantic gnats and swallowing ideological camels again,
are you!?
The folks who've realized for some time that which you are only
now becoming dimly aware of, (ie., a change of sending address),
are laughing. They are not laughing _with_ you, 'angelicker'.
Right, whatever. Your hostility fits your vapid arguments. Do you
drink this much every day?
What do you imagine that your imaginary angels do give
information on, dumbass?
They tell me that people who call others "dumbass" because they have
so little to offer the world, are usually very upset inside. They are
persons tormented by lack of faith in anything and lack of
accomplishments in other areas. They are sad people, who vent a lot of
frustration and hostility on NGs because their lives are hollow and
rife with problems. Of course they also say that such people will
NEVER admit to this and will of course continue to hide their neurosis
with glib commentary which they feel makes them look somehow
"important" to other egotists on the web. They say that such people
have fouled up the Web pretty good with a lot of ignorant ranting and
yelling and so people who do not have an understanding of the deep
traumas these trolls and others like yourself suffer, see only the
hatred, sullenness and hostility and are then convinced the Web sucks.
So the Web becomes more and more the habitues of trolls, spammers,
hackers, crackers and con artists.
So of course we have a little hamster wheel going here where Web
Trolls run around all day thinking they have actually got something
accomplished.
They tell me a lot of other things too. But things which I fear you
would be either too ignorant or too hostile to understand.
Have they 'whispered' to you
about your impending return to the place of white coats
and colorful pills in small paper cups yet?
This shows me you have no angelic information at all. Since I have
never been in such a place, and will never be in one. But it sounds
like you have some direct experience with this place. So many have.
And I suppose this glib comment of yours makes you feel better than
those who face mental illness. It must be nice to be so deeply
believing in one's own invunerability as you are. However I find this
is usually the sign of a delusional mind. Delusional minds are always
so proud and happy of the state they are in, so far above the rest of
humanity... You go Icarus!
Saint
T.N.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 09:58:11 AM |
|
|
(angelicusrex) wrote in
<bqp396$25v9ar$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de>:
"Li Mu Bai" <green@goddess.net> wrote in message
news:vt013smbmc1mc1@corp.supernews.com...
Show me evidence that angels exist.
(what's with all the top posters these days?)
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the
argument, you show me evidence angels don't exist.
Shifting the burden of proof.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right
to do so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough
"evidence" for my personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the
only way an angel will show up in your life, when you believe in them.
OK, you believe, we'll laugh.
If you are going to scorn, cajole, berate and pooh-pooh other people's
beliefs, they aren't going to want to help you.
If you want to help me, can you fix an oil leak in a motorcycle?
Now. I can help you find your angels. Read my book at iUniverse.Com
"Speaking of Angels." Or my website at http://www.saintalbanstudio.com
But if you are going to use these things to scorn me or rake me over
your peculiar coals, then I'll just say "forget you."
Bwahahahaha! Angels.
<snip>
--
Blast Femur
______________
"A long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided
it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of
years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and
pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine
Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it
seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if
every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and *****
up Your Plan?"
-- George Carlin (NYC, 2/6/99)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 04:24:54 AM |
|
|
In article <bqp396$25v9ar$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote:
Why? Are you arguing that angels don't exist? If you started the argument,
you show me evidence angels don't exist.
If you want rational people to believe in something, you need to provide
evidence.
I am not making any assertions. I BELIEVE angels exist, it is my right to do
so. I BELIEVE I speak to them and I have gathered enough "evidence" for my
personal beliefs to become secure. And that is the only way an angel will
show up in your life, when you believe in them.
So you admit that you believe in something for which there is no
objective evidence. That's irrational, you know. Not to mention daft.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 10:30:02 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote in message
If you want rational people to believe in something, you need to provide
evidence.
First of all, present some evidence that you are "rational." I find atheism
highly irrational. It proposes that lack of evidencesome how proves God does
not exist. When actually they are denying any and all evidence given to
them.
On the other hand, I could care less if you believe in something or not.
It's really none of my business. I never asked for anyone to believe in
angels. The masseage you are posting to was crossposted by a troll. It
wasn't meant for any unbelievers, but only those on alt.religion.angels and
specifically the question was addressed to ME. Not to you. None of you have
the right to even ride on this post. But your irrational behaviors seem to
know few bounds. You seem to think I am arguing a point. I am not. It's like
you walked in on the middle of a conversation and decided to join in. And
now you are going to brow beat me for "evidence" to strengthen your failed
beliefs? That's highly irrational if you ask me.
After all, who am I? Did I tell you I was an expert of some sort? Did I post
to your groups and ask you to debate angels with me? I really don't care if
you think you are rational. It does not follow that a rational person would
need evidence for belief. One either believes or one doesn't based on
personal experience. Belief is not "rational" anyway. I don't "believe the
sun shines." I KNOW it. Coincidently I don't "Believe God and Angles exist."
I KNOW they do.
So you admit that you believe in something for which there is no
objective evidence. That's irrational, you know. Not to mention daft.
There is plenty of objective evidence. I just choose not to present it in a
debate format with people who have irrationally already made up their minds
not to accept it. You look for excuses to call all people involved in
Spirituality "daft" and irrational, as if this somehow places you above
them. Well, enjoy the view from your high-horse. I really couldn't care
less.
David T. St. Albans, Reverend, Church of the SubGenius...Fulfilling Prophecy
since 1973! BOB SAVES
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
05 Dec 2003 11:07:25 PM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@yahoo.dieSPAM.com> wrote
If you want rational people to believe in something, you need
to provide evidence.
First of all, present some evidence that you are "rational."
Irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not any one individual is
"rational," the fact stands that many people are.
I find atheism highly irrational.
A cheap dodge.
It proposes that lack of evidencesome how proves God does
not exist.
Worse than a dodge, you now misrepresent yourself as an authority
on atheism.
There is plenty of objective evidence.
Bold assertion.
I just choose not to present it in a debate format with people who
have irrationally already made up their minds not to accept it.
Loser.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
10 Dec 2003 02:40:21 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br6k9l$28ka6r$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
I'm being rational and logical
Where??
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
11 Dec 2003 03:23:28 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br8ad0$gg20$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
It's your claim, correct? Then you are required to prove it.
I made no"claim." Actually it was claimed by someone else that I
said
angels existed.
Message-ID: br8a73$gqr2$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de
http://tinyurl.com/yqch
"I KNOW God and angels exist."
- angelicusrex (whisperindave@msn.com)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Li Mu Bai" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
12 Dec 2003 02:21:55 AM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:brbnrk$1l5cc$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
There is no burden of proof upon anyone who believes in God to
prove
God
exists to an unbeliever.
Clearly there is, otherwise why would Christians try to prove
God
exists to unbelievers?
They aren't "trying to prove God exists."
They are trying to prove God exists, actually. Just as you have been
doing for hundreds of posts.
That is an impossibility.
Then why do you keep trying?
They want you to BELIEVE He exists
Why would anyone believe in something without evidence?
Now *that* is irrational.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
06 Dec 2003 08:50:28 PM |
|
|
And so upon Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:30:02 -0700 didst angelicusrex speak
thusly:
I find atheism
highly irrational. It proposes that lack of evidencesome how proves God does
not exist.
Wrong. But thanks for playing!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "angelicusrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 02:31:59 PM |
|
|
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make you
right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Saint
"Mark K. Bilbo" <see.blog@sig.below> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.07.02.50.27.885848@sig.below...
And so upon Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:30:02 -0700 didst angelicusrex speak
thusly:
I find atheism
highly irrational. It proposes that lack of evidencesome how proves God
does
not exist.
Wrong. But thanks for playing!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 02:40:09 PM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote
Prove my proposal wrong.
Prove a negative?
Troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 05:37:46 PM |
|
|
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02ni$265k24$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make you
right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Saint
It is a fundamental rule of all systems of debate and formal discussion that
the person offering a proposal is the one required to prove it right. Those
opposing the proposal may choose either to try to disprove it or simply to
refute the attempts of the one making the proposal to prove it. You seem to
be the one trying to play a game to which you do not know the rules.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 10:46:51 PM |
|
|
zayton wrote:
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02ni$265k24$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make
you right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Saint
It is a fundamental rule of all systems of debate and formal
discussion that the person offering a proposal is the one required to
prove it right.
Not if the position of the person asking for proof can be shown to be
incohrent or inconsistent. You would do well to remember that the burden
then becomes the asker's to show consistency and coherency.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
07 Dec 2003 11:10:11 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:46:51 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
zayton wrote:
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02ni$265k24$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make
you right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Saint
It is a fundamental rule of all systems of debate and formal
discussion that the person offering a proposal is the one required to
prove it right.
Not if the position of the person asking for proof can be shown to be
incohrent or inconsistent. You would do well to remember that the burden
then becomes the asker's to show consistency and coherency.
Apparently you're having trouble with that reading thing. I'll repost what
he wrote:
It is a fundamental rule of all systems of debate and formal
discussion that the person offering a proposal is the one required to
prove it right.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
http://nullusfides.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for angelicusrex |
08 Dec 2003 01:43:52 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
And so upon Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:46:51 -0800 didst TehGhodTrole speak
thusly:
zayton wrote:
"angelicusrex" <whisperindave@msn.com> wrote in message
news:br02ni$265k24$1@ID-168098.news.uni-berlin.de...
Prove my proposal wrong. Just spouting off about it does not make
you right. Learn the rules, before you play the game.
Saint
It is a fundamental rule of all systems of debate and formal
discussion that the person offering a proposal is the one required
to prove it right.
Not if the position of the person asking for proof can be shown to be
incohrent or inconsistent. You would do well to remember that the
burden then becomes the asker's to show consistency and coherency.
Apparently you're having trouble with that reading thing. I'll repost
what he wrote:
[Snip]
I can read. Atheism is incoherent. It is not rational. Please show that
atheism is logically rational.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
