Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,419 Year: 6,676/9,624 Month: 16/238 Week: 16/22 Day: 7/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof and analysis of Biblical end time accuracey [Synnegi]
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6715 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 136 of 155 (172888)
01-01-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by umliak
01-01-2005 10:42 PM


Okay
Excuse me, but I believe I first accused you of not reading anything anyone writes. Do you think by continuing to copy off the things I say to you that you will somehow appear smarter?
Repeating you is the last thing I would do to attemtp to appear more intelligent then I am. Since being reprimanded by the admins, I have tried to be more polite with you. Don't go ruining it.
You alone asked for support and I gave you it.
In fear of repeating myself, I must say again that you did not.
The fact of the matter is, you asked for support on something I spoke regarding myself and my beliefs. Just because you have different objectives and viewpoints on matters doesn't mean I am in-tune with you. I am not your soulmate, I do not know your requirements for something to be considered a real language.
No, you never said "I believe 'tongues' is a real language." You asserted it as fact that it is. You must be able to support assertions, which you have never done (for reasons told to you repeatedly).
However, if you have been wanting a definition of language, you should have asked. I would have been happy to suggest one. That is the responsibility of a debator. I ask for support of an assertion, you give it. In that process, you feel the need to know exactly what I mean by a term, I give it. See how that works? I offer this, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Language, a noun meaning:
a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
c. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.
If tongues is spoken by people, and I have texts telling me it is a real language, and then people turn to me and tell me it isn't real, it's gibberish, then I have the right to then turn and say it is real.
You certainly do, if that is your opinion. If you claim it to be a fcat, as you have done, then you must be able to support your position.
If I do not, then I am now requesting you provide factual evidence that tongues is gibberish, beyond faith, or otherwise withdraw your claims. It's a two-way street buddy. Before being overlyconfident, I would suggest you evaluate your own claims.
I never made a claim. I asked you to support one you made. What you are doing here is called "shifting the burden of proof", a common fallacy. Saying "Prove I'm wrong" is not support of a position.
Therefore I demand now respect for my beliefs, unless you admit your demands are selfish and wrong.
How is it selfish, wrong, or disrespectful to ask for an assertion to be defended in a debate? The answer is that it isn't. You may not like it but I can't help that. Just because you think something is no reason to accept it as fact, Umliak.
You have provided absolutely no proof of tongues not being a real language, nor gibberish. Nor have you provided proof there is no God, so I will demand proof of your claims. I also demand proof and support that the Bible is not archaeologically accurate, nor scientifically accurate in anyway.
Otherwise withdraw all your claims as you have enslaved me to do.
You are really, really ticked off by the fact that you can't win on this speaking in tongues thing, aren't you? Well, take a break from moving those goalposts. I will be happy to get into it with you on any of those points, but first you're going to have to demonstrate that you have learned how to debate. The way to do that is to either withdraw your clain that "tongues" is a real language or provide real evidence for it. Show me that and we might be able to discuss something else.
No amount of shifting or dodging is going to work. The subject will not be changed and you will not shift the burden of proof onto me. Put up or shut up.
And nobody can tell me I'm wrong here, because the fact is the basis of religion is that those who believe it consider it fact by nature. Therefore if unreligious people consider something unfactual by nature, I see no reason why those who are religious should have to conform to unreligious beliefs. That in itself is oppressive of religion and is one-sided, and I hope now you see my point, as I am making myself clearer.
I've been trying to get this point across, and I think now I have used the right words.
No, I don't think you've used the right words, because I'm not sure I understand this. No matter. We can save it for later, once you have dispensed with this speaking in tongues business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by umliak, posted 01-01-2005 10:42 PM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:37 AM mikehager has replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 155 (172903)
01-02-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AdminJar
01-01-2005 11:11 PM


Re: If you consider it FACT
Sorry, you were the one making the assertion that it is a valid language, so it is up to you to provide support.
Finally, it is time you began to support your assertions beginning with those from the OP.
Let me repeat myself, if I say the Holy Spirit is real, and so tongues is real, why should I withdraw my religious beliefs?
I will not for the sake of your beliefs withdraw my own. You believe it is not a real language, I believe it is.
For the record, I do believe they called tongues gibberish before I called tongues a "real language".
Therefore, excuse me while I demand you provide your proof first. And secondly, you people have not reminded me of any support you desire.
You keep repeating the tongues thing being a "real language", and I have long and tiresomely turned the tables on you. So I demand proof that it is gibberish. Further yet, I even withdrew the claim; so I owe you nothing more.
Beyond which, if all you can insist is that I "begin supporting claims", claims to which I have no clue you're talking about, then I will insist I don't know what you're talking about. So I suggest you put a little more effort into yourself before being a hypocrite and judging me. I politely asked you to explain yourself and your demands, and all you repeat are general, vague and obscure demands. You seem to be able to respect the viewpoint of atheists, and yet while I have explained myself time and time again, and insist I have attempted to answer your concerns and requests, you have yet to tell me of any real claims I have not supported.
Thank you, and goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AdminJar, posted 01-01-2005 11:11 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by AdminJar, posted 01-02-2005 12:27 AM umliak has not replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 155 (172907)
01-02-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by AdminJar
01-01-2005 11:11 PM


Re: If you consider it FACT
No, if challenged you have the requirement to support your assertion. A reference to other folk sharing the same beliefs is not evidence.
It is evidence, actually. And they were more than just sharing the same beliefs. People who begin to utter a foreign language have the right to claim what they spoke was a real language. For all you know they received a vision telling them it is. That is support. You can deny this all you want; if you do, you will be wrong.
Especially when the moon landing is regarded as fact and yet nobody here can provide any proof that it is. So then how can you accept this as fact, and yet regard something else as not? I ask you a question, and I expect you to answer it.
So far you've only backtalked me; you have yet to answer me. AdminAsgara is the only one so far who has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AdminJar, posted 01-01-2005 11:11 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by mikehager, posted 01-02-2005 12:37 AM umliak has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 155 (172908)
01-02-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by umliak
01-02-2005 12:20 AM


Re: If you consider it FACT
If you wish to support tongues as a FACT all you have to do is provide a scientific peer reviewed journal that shows the translation, syntax, for and meaning of all of the examples of tongues. When you can show that tongues can be easilly understood by others without self interpretation, you may have something.
Until that time all you have is an assertion.
Let me repeat myself, if I say the Holy Spirit is real, and so tongues is real, why should I withdraw my religious beliefs?
That is fine. As a belief no one will fault you. It is only when you take the step to declare it fact that you must provide proof.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:20 AM umliak has not replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 155 (172909)
01-02-2005 12:30 AM


Fine. I hope you have seen where you were in error as you seem to have stopped demanding I provide support.

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminJar, posted 01-02-2005 12:33 AM umliak has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 155 (172911)
01-02-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by umliak
01-02-2005 12:30 AM


You can express belief, for example a belief in GOD without proof. If you were to say GOD is a fact then you will need to provide proof.
If you say tongues are language then you will be expected to provide support.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:30 AM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:41 AM AdminJar has replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 155 (172913)
01-02-2005 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by mikehager
01-01-2005 11:42 PM


Re: Okay
Forgive me, because I would never wish to offend you, but please do not lie, and stop your deceitful trickery;
I never made a claim. I asked you to support one you made. What you are doing here is called "shifting the burden of proof", a common fallacy. Saying "Prove I'm wrong" is not support of a position.
This is a quote from message 27 of this thread, a post you have made:
Unfortunately, you are wrong and I am not ignorant on this. I've seen people speaking in tongues in person and in various recorded media. No person who has claimed to have done so has ever uttered anything other then gibberish. It could be I am wrong... provide the evidence and documentation you cite. Other, I'm sticking with that it's gibberish. So, while science hasn't done what you ask, it hasn't happened due to religious ecstacy either.
Now, show me proof that it's gibberish. If you want to try to treat me with decency, then I would be most thankful. Otherwise I ask you show proof or withdraw it. I am only doing this for your own good--to show you how unfair and selfish you are acting. And also to show you the error of your ways. I hope you will learn from this.
Because I will not be as hurtful as you, I will insist I don't require you show proof nor withdraw it. You are set free from your debts; however, if someone else should take you up on your own dose of medicine, under the rules of this forum, I am not obligated to get involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by mikehager, posted 01-01-2005 11:42 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by mikehager, posted 01-02-2005 12:47 AM umliak has replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6715 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 143 of 155 (172914)
01-02-2005 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by umliak
01-02-2005 12:27 AM


Re: If you consider it FACT
Backtalked you? Backtalked you? I am stunned that you have the nerve to say that.
Do you understand the difference between a personal belief and a fact? That is a rhetorical question, really, because it's clear you don't. That's the problem I think. I suggest you get yourself a little more education and maybe read up on logic and similar matters.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 01-02-2005 00:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:27 AM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:47 AM mikehager has not replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 155 (172915)
01-02-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by AdminJar
01-02-2005 12:33 AM


If you say tongues are language then you will be expected to provide support.
Taken from dictionary.com
gibberish
n.
1. Unintelligible or nonsensical talk or writing.
2. a.Highly technical or esoteric language.
b.Unnecessarily pretentious or vague language.
Do you need anything more?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AdminJar, posted 01-02-2005 12:33 AM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by AdminJar, posted 01-02-2005 12:43 AM umliak has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 155 (172916)
01-02-2005 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by umliak
01-02-2005 12:41 AM


Yes.
We are speaking of Tongues.
If you wish to support tongues as fact you will need to find some peer reviewed articles showing it is a valid language.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:41 AM umliak has not replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 155 (172917)
01-02-2005 12:46 AM


I went down that route and you didn't like my support. So I withdrew the claim on account that I will not get involved in matters that admittedly would not be acknowledged. I was oppressed on account of my religious text, and so I withdrew. At least I was able to preach the Word.

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by mikehager, posted 01-02-2005 12:52 AM umliak has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6715 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 147 of 155 (172919)
01-02-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by umliak
01-02-2005 12:37 AM


Re: Okay
Wow. You stun me again with your ignorance and misunderstanding. I was providing the reason that I don't believe your assertion in the process of challenging it. Note that I said I could be wrong and invited you to provide evidence. Why does this simple point seem to be so far beyond you? You made the claim. You have to support it. You have no reason to expect others to believe something because you do, unless there is evidence.
On a personal note, you would be well served to not start a by calling me decietful and a liar and then ask to be traeted decently. Believe me, this message is far better treatment then you deserve. Also, this is neither unfair or selfish. I am simply holding you to the same standards I hold myself and everyone else. It's not my fault that the standards of reason seem unfair to you.
Unfair... what an amazing claim. How terrible of me to ask someone to give me more reason to think something then their word.
Again, no more ducking, dodging or weaving. Stop whining and do something. Either support your position or admit that what you claimed simply isn't a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:37 AM umliak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:52 AM mikehager has replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 155 (172920)
01-02-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by mikehager
01-02-2005 12:37 AM


Re: If you consider it FACT
Backtalked you? Backtalked you? I am stunned that you have the nerve to say that.
Do you understand the difference between a personal belief and a fact? That is a rhetorical question, really, because it's clear you don't. That's the problem I think. I suggest you get yourself a little more education and maybe read up on logic and similar matters.
I don't suppose you ignored message 136

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by mikehager, posted 01-02-2005 12:37 AM mikehager has not replied

umliak
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 155 (172921)
01-02-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by mikehager
01-02-2005 12:47 AM


Re: Okay
Wow. You stun me again with your ignorance and misunderstanding. I was providing the reason that I don't believe your assertion in the process of challenging it. Note that I said I could be wrong and invited you to provide evidence. Why does this simple point seem to be so far beyond you? You made the claim. You have to support it. You have no reason to expect others to believe something because you do, unless there is evidence.
On a personal note, you would be well served to not start a by calling me decietful and a liar and then ask to be traeted decently. Believe me, this message is far better treatment then you deserve. Also, this is neither unfair or selfish. I am simply holding you to the same standards I hold myself and everyone else. It's not my fault that the standards of reason seem unfair to you.
Unfair... what an amazing claim. How terrible of me to ask someone to give me more reason to think something then their word.
Again, no more ducking, dodging or weaving. Stop whining and do something. Either support your position or admit that what you claimed simply isn't a fact.
You have been warned not to turn this thread into a fight. You are now providing proof that you show no regard for me or anything I have said. I presume you will be repremanded.
And for the record, reason or not, you are required to show support and proof for your claims. Otherwise withdraw it and admit that you were wrong. This is exactly what you did to me. But like I said, for the sake of your own peace, I will not by any means waste an Administrator's time or yours and demand you do so. I believe treatment like this (which you have shown me) is unfair, obscure, and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by mikehager, posted 01-02-2005 12:47 AM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by mikehager, posted 01-02-2005 12:56 AM umliak has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6715 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 150 of 155 (172922)
01-02-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by umliak
01-02-2005 12:46 AM


Again, no you didn't.
That little webpage you cited was as far from being a peer reviewed publication as I can imagine. Try looking up "peer reviewed"
Also, I think I can safely say that your attempts to "preach the word" only served to alienate people from whatever your idea of it is. Note that the preceeding sentence is a PERSONAL BELIEF and not a FACT, since you can't seem to tell the difference.
This message has been edited by mikehager, 01-02-2005 00:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by umliak, posted 01-02-2005 12:46 AM umliak has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024