So you disagree with the logical fallacies clearly presented then Evie? I suppose you'd chicken out as usual if I asked you to push one of your rebuttals forward for us all to see now?

What/which logical fallacies are you speaking of? Presented by whom?

EvF

Well Arcanus springs to mind, although granted you have presented laughable rebuts to him over a couple so you may be excused for reasons of insanity

I may have made some mistakes, but so has he. Quoting me out of context and putting it into his sig, which unless understood to be humorous is quote mining: And then there's the fact that he often seems to assume I am being absolutist when I'm not, and yet tells me not to make assumptions. But he's a good debater, yeah.

EvF

EvF,

You need to thank Fr0d0 when he provides a link to what he is talking about!

Oh, WAIT! He TOTALY failed to link to anything and instead just involked the name of Arcanus! Give him time I am sure he will start using certain initials in a bit.

Well Adrian said something really important on this issue and so did Purple Rabbit who was supported by Kyu.. Wait what? Oh you want me to provide a link? Sorry that would remove ambiguity and that isn't my bag baby!

Rhizo

I asked first Rhiz.

I don't think he misunderstood you Evie. You often misunderstand him, but I'll grant you your subjective right.

He has at times said that I was being fallacious because what I said does not absolutely prove or disprove X, but I never claimed it did. He attributed me to absolutism when I wasn't being absolutist - and never am - and I didn't claim to absolutely 'know' anything! So yes he has misunderstood me at times. Nobody's perfect.

When did you ask for a link fr0d0? And a link of what?

You asked me to push out one of my 'rebuttals', and to what? I thought you meant in response to you! You never mentioned a link.

When you suddenly said -

(October 15, 2009 at 7:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So you disagree with the logical fallacies clearly presented then Evie? I suppose you'd chicken out as usual if I asked you to push one of your rebuttals forward for us all to see now?

- I had no idea what you were talking about. What are you referring to?

EvF

(October 15, 2009 at 8:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I asked first Rhiz.

I don't think he misunderstood you Evie. You often misunderstand him, but I'll grant you your subjective right.

Well, you also assigned errors to atheists and then challenged EvF to rebut... something.

Look pal, if you want to quote Arcanus do so, but don't talk about some undescribed argument that you think is good without providing a quote! It is beyond annoying!

Rhizo

---

(October 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: ...I wasn't being absolutist - and never am...

Bolding mine

Sorry, but did you do this on purpose? It is funny if you did otherwise I am confused unless you are talking about moral absolutism then it becomes not funny at all.

Rhizo

(October 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: When did you ask for a link fr0d0? And a link of what?

I didn't, but grab that life belt.

(October 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You asked me to push out one of my 'rebuttals', and to what?

Read it again then

(October 15, 2009 at 8:16 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I had no idea what you were talking about. What are you referring to?

You said you disagreed that atheism was proving to be logically in error as referred to by your sig. I asked YOU to provide proofs of that. PROVE a positive. Not a Rhiz is trying to spin it for you to slither out of.

(October 15, 2009 at 8:17 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Bolding mine

Sorry, but did you do this on purpose? It is funny if you did otherwise I am confused unless you are talking about moral absolutism then it becomes not funny at all.

Rhizo

I am not claiming to know that I never am.

EvF

---

fr0d0 Wrote:I didn't, but grab that life belt.

So why did you say to Rhiz that you 'asked first'?

Quote:Read it again then

You don't specify anything, so once again: I have no idea what you are referring to.

fr0d0 Wrote:You said you disagreed that atheism was proving to be logically in error as referred to by your sig.

That is not referred to in my sig. My sig doesn't say that.

Quote:I asked YOU to provide proofs of that. PROVE a positive. Not a Rhiz is trying to spin it for you to slither out of.

I never said that atheism wasn't fallacious. I just asked as to how it is, when you claimed/suggested that it was. If anyone needs to substantiate a claim, it's you.

EvF