 | | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) be used against christianity like #2 2. Arguing in a circle: If you have already assumed in your premise what you are going to state in your conclusion, then you have ended where you began and proven nothing. (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Kinda like a guy who rejects "traditional" views of morality, invents his own (!) and then declares himself righteous?!! Honestly, how bizarre is that?! Ruminate on that one for a while and then criticize all you want. I don't believe in God (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Yeah, for the majority of the article I felt like running a few perl regexps on it: s/islam/christianity/gi; s/muhammed/jesus/gi; s/koran/bible/gi; Though my favorite by far was number 1: The Bible is older, so it's right! Never mind the fact (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: <snip> If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to pick a fight. Circular reasoning is fallacious no matter who advances it, or what it is used to knock down or raise up... That's all I'm (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Meet me after school in the parking lot, unless you're yella'. ;`) A bit more seriously, although still in jest, what if I were? (...) Agreed. I just couldn't resist. (...) Whole-heartedly agree. Utter rubbish - the entire site and those like (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
|
(...) Heynowwaitaminnit! I resemble that remark. Actually, that describes me well enough. But your implication is that the logic therein is circular. Maybe I'm a little slow, but I don't see it. Could you spell it out slowly for me? thanks, Chris (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
