Subject:
|
Re: Chick disproves Islam!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Sep 2001 03:22:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
160 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > This was far too funny not to post.
> >
> > http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/fallacies.asp
>
> Thanks for sharing! I especially cherished the ones that can just as easily
> 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.
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 because the Bible says so; and I don't believe the
Bible because God says so. I believe God because He personally reached into
my life and made himself known to me. Why? I don't know. Perhaps I'm niftier
than you ;). Can I prove my experience to anyone else? No. I can show you my
changed life...but you've already disqualified that evidence.
I've posted in the past that God is supernatural and as such does not
contradict science, he simply circumvents it because He exists outside it.
Now, I see and understand the problem that that presents for someone like
yourself...even more, I respect it. But, the fact that you have not "met"
God does not mean that I haven't. The difference is I know God exists and
you think (dare I say "believe") He doesn't. I'm not sure, but I think it
was Einstein who said that if we possess a generous 3% of the knowledge of
the universe, isn't it possible that the proof of God exists in the other
97%? Granted, proof of the Easter Bunny might also reside there, but it is
still a valid point.
For the record, I agree that the Chick article was laughable.
Respectfully,
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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!
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
