What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Incubus on 3 Apr 2005 20:19 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > Prove to me that you exist "The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is genuinely under discussion." -- http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp The issue genuinely under discussion between theists and atheists is this irrational religious belief theists have that there might be a magically invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing theists can point out so that others can check their observations.
From: Incubus on 3 Apr 2005 20:42 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > Since you appear so interested in a debate ... There is nothing to debate. All we have is is a one-sided existential proposition from you that there might be an invisible supreme bean. This is not a debate, you have the full burden of proof in the matter of your alleged entity. Got proof?
From: Virgil on 3 Apr 2005 23:39 In article <BNudnSMehKsSEM3fRVn-qw(a)comcast.com>, Incubus <in(a)in.net> wrote: > Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > > > > Since you appear so interested in a debate ... > > There is nothing to debate. Simple Septic not willing to debate, because he always loses when he has to play on a level playing field.
From: Incubus on 3 Apr 2005 23:27 Virgil wrote: > In article <BNudnSMehKsSEM3fRVn-qw(a)comcast.com>, Incubus <in(a)in.net> > wrote: > > >>Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: >> >> >> >>>Since you appear so interested in a debate ... >> >>There is nothing to debate. > > > Simple Septic not willing to debate ... Happy to be on a debate team any time, any where, but in this case there is nothing to debate, as I said, all we have is is a one-sided existential proposition from you that there might be an invisible supreme bean. This is not a debate, you have the full burden of proof in the matter of your alleged entity. Got proof?
From: Virgil on 4 Apr 2005 02:31
In article <PPWdnYYz9YOCKc3fRVn-tg(a)comcast.com>, Incubus <in(a)in.net> wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > > In article <BNudnSMehKsSEM3fRVn-qw(a)comcast.com>, Incubus <in(a)in.net> > > wrote: > > > > > >>Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Since you appear so interested in a debate ... > >> > >>There is nothing to debate. > > > > > > Simple Septic not willing to debate ... > > Happy to be on a debate team any time, any where... On anything that Simple Septic has not already made up his mind about, but such things are virtually impossible to find. Simple Septic will simply insist that whatever he believes is Gospel and beyond argument. Much like the worst of the theists who try to convert us. The two extremes are mirror images of one another. |