(September 26, 2009 at 8:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: This is all starting with the assumption that you're right. That's the problem with your argument :p: It's not an argument.

As I said, the fact they agree on it means fuck-all. It doesn't mean they have a special understanding on it. They need...you know what.

We are in no way talking about any 'assumption'. You change the subject.

Your gross misunderstanding cannot be excused so easily. It is not "special understanding" it's simply understanding.

(September 26, 2009 at 8:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: That's the problem with your argument: it's not an argument.

Snagged for sig!

Haha! Too funny

Because bare assertions. are not arguments

You say they have a special understanding of the bible.... you say they're special consensus means something, okay, why should I believe you?

A bare assertion is not an argument. It needs an argument.

I did not change the subject. You say that they 'get it', this is an assumption. And an assumption on your side of the argument. Bare assumptions and assertions are not arguments, you need some argumentation for them to be arguments. Just asserting stuff barely is not an argument. I can just dismiss it all if you do that.

EvF

As I have said before, "An unsupported conclusion is just an assumption trying to look presentable. Conclusions are drawn from arguments, not thin air. The burden of proof is your duty to expose the argument from which your conclusion is drawn."

(September 27, 2009 at 6:48 pm)Arcanus Wrote: As I have said before, "An unsupported conclusion is just an assumption trying to look presentable. Conclusions are drawn from arguments, not thin air. The burden of proof is your duty to expose the argument from which your conclusion is drawn."

He did, he asked you to provide reasoning for believing that there is a consensus.

(September 27, 2009 at 10:24 pm)theVOID Wrote: He did. He asked you to provide reasoning for believing that there is a consensus.

Um, no. Evie is not that irrational. He would not ask me to support someone else's argument. (He asked Frodo, not me. Pay attention.)

I hate how some people will argue not to take certain aspects of the bible literally... Damn... You can just about make any book seem like the word of God if you say that certain aspects aren't literal... If any line seems ridiculous and you don't want to believe in it, you can just say that "it wasn't meant to be taken that way". How is anyone supposed to know what is supposed to be taken literally or not???

In religion, it's the norm to follow the rules that are suitable for you...

(September 28, 2009 at 1:13 am)GrayAreas Wrote: How is anyone supposed to know what is supposed to be taken literally or not?

There's this thing, called a brain? Yeah, people with one tend to use it. As expressed by Galileo Galilei, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

(September 28, 2009 at 1:24 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(September 28, 2009 at 1:13 am)GrayAreas Wrote: How is anyone supposed to know what is supposed to be taken literally or not?

There's this thing, called a brain? Yeah, people with one tend to use it. As expressed by Galileo Galilei, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

Oh, you're a laugh....

The same God who couldn't supervise the coherent authorship of his own word?

The same god who, by being all knowing, was fully aware that the books would be interpreted differently by millions of people?

The same god who gave us these brains to be able to decipher the meaning of his word?

The same all knowing god who knew that the brains and logic he gave us were still not adequate to form a conclusive opinion of his word but went through with it anyway?

Sounds like a straight up genius this God fella.