Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-29-2004, 11:02 PM | #11 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 323
|
Quote:
|
|
05-02-2004, 09:43 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: where no one has gone before
Posts: 735
|
Quote:
__________________ Enterprise...OUT. |
|
05-02-2004, 10:29 PM | #13 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
The discussion about Nazareth variations has been split here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=84435 |
05-03-2004, 05:28 AM | #14 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 414
|
CX said “Evidence that demands a verdict by Josh McDowell� was an argument he had seen (i.e. read). He asserted it was ‘predicated on the assumption that people who read it are complete morons’.
You then stated: Quote:
|
|
05-03-2004, 09:53 AM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
|
Quote:
|
|
05-04-2004, 07:18 PM | #16 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 414
|
Warning! This post is really not worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Quote:
However your actual statements at face value contain no nuance or implication that the presupposition McDowell manifests is related to conviction as to the veracity of his claims. You could have (more properly) been taken to be insinuating the presupposition of McDowell was FALSE, especially in light of the foregoing discussion which offered other (presumably false) examples of presuppositions used by apologists. It just amused me that in attempting to affirm you, he ended up implying you were a moron without realizing it. |
||
05-05-2004, 11:00 AM | #17 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|