Islam offends me!

[Lonely]

Does it offend you, too?

[ChaosBorders]

Response: To the contrary, your proof that I'm making an argument of ignorance is an argument of ignorance? The irony as expected...

I don't think you really understand what that is...did you even read the articles we linked you to?

Here's an abbreviated version:

Claiming to have proven that a statement is true (or false) when all that has actually been proven is that it is not known to be false. If something can not be proven either way, just act like the opinion opposite of yours is inherently sillier, and you can assert that your position must be assumed correct until someone from the other side can prove you wrong. Usually involves an appeal to one's own authority and/or Burden of Proof Fallacy

You have not shown it to be humanly impossible for someone to use a book to inspire followers. You have not shown Allah wrote the Qu'ran. You have not shown any of the list of things Aki pointed out that you have asserted. You are making arguments from ignorance, again and again.

[LiamOS]

I never intended to prove that the death penalty prevents homosexuality

Then you should not have said it.

You asserted it, and now you have two legitimate choices:
Prove it.
Retract it.


Also, an acknowledgement of your ignorance of the post references would be nice.

Yet I have demonstrated the fact that my argument is not an argument of ignorance.

You haven't even begun.

The proof? Here's a hint: The simple fact that you can't demonstrate that it is and all proof in which you present is proof is utterly foolish.

So, because you don't understand the argument from ignorance, your argument is not one?

Your 'proof' that you are not making an Argument from Ignorance IS an Argument from Ignorance. The irony is almost palpable...

Indeed.

Yet the proof that my argument is logical has been presented.

That you don't understand an argument from ignorance?
That you out-of-hand reject our demonstration of how it isn't?

Also, you failed to prove that the word "english" is to be capitalized in a discussion

I think I speak for ChaosBorders when I say that the basic rules of English are taken for granted.

To the contrary, your proof that I'm making an argument of ignorance is an argument of ignorance? The irony as expected...

Nobody else gets it.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

you failed to prove that the word "english" is to be capitalized

Nor the word allah.

[Fatihah]

Response: Yet the proof that my argument is logical has been presented. Your denial to the fact is not my doing. Also, you failed to prove that the word "english" is to be capitalized in a discussion in which you claim that I have no proof because I never presented it. How hypocritical.

English must be capitalized. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/English That is just basic grammar. I assume you have access to a dictionary, given that we are online and there are thousands of them.

And really? In what post did you 'prove' your argument is logical?

No. It is not to be capitalized, as any kindergartener can tell you. That's basic common sense.

And the proof of my argument is in post 252.

[LiamOS]

No. It is not to be capitalized, as any kindergardener can tell you. That's basic common sense.

You obviously skipped 'kindergarden'.

The word you were looking for is kindergarten.

And I think you also meant 'capitalised'.

And the proof of my argument is in post 252.

This is just you talking, and not actually proving anything.

[Fatihah]

Response: To the contrary, your proof that I'm making an argument of ignorance is an argument of ignorance? The irony as expected...

I don't think you really understand what that is...did you even read the articles we linked you to?

Here's an abbreviated version:

Claiming to have proven that a statement is true (or false) when all that has actually been proven is that it is not known to be false. If something can not be proven either way, just act like the opinion opposite of yours is inherently sillier, and you can assert that your position must be assumed correct until someone from the other side can prove you wrong. Usually involves an appeal to one's own authority and/or Burden of Proof Fallacy

You have not shown it to be humanly impossible for someone to use a book to inspire followers. You have not shown Allah wrote the Qu'ran. You have not shown any of the list of things Aki pointed out that you have asserted. You are making arguments from ignorance, again and again.

Response: I have shown that it is humanly impossible to use a book invented by a person(s) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation and that Allah originated the qur'an. Proven by the fact that you have failed to accept the challenge but rather run from it. Such is the act of denial, which confirms that it has been proven. Otherwise, you would have used a book invented by a pwson(s) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation to prove that it is possible. But you haven't. Thus your denial is evidence to the fact and lack of clear proof is due to your own doing, for you did not accept the challenge which confirms my proof.

[Fatihah]

No. It is not to be capitalized, as any kindergardener can tell you. That's basic common sense.

You obviously skipped 'kindergarden'.

The word you were looking for is kindergarten.

And I think you also meant 'capitalised'.

And the proof of my argument is in post 252.

This is just you talking, and not actually proving anything.

Response: The word was corrected. You hapoened to quote the post before the correction was made. And no, I mean "capitalized". And to the contrary, you are just talking.

[LiamOS]

I have shown that it is humanly impossible to use a book invented by a person(s) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation and that Allah originated the qur'an.

You've said it is, but proved nothing.

Proven by the fact that you have failed to accept the challenge but rather run from it.

I have successfully(Can I get somebody else's opinion here) fulfilled the challenge.

Such is the act of denial, which confirms that it has been proven.

Denial proves nothing other than denial.

Otherwise, you would have used a book invented by a pwson(s) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation to prove that it is possible. But you haven't.

Do it in a few days?
Boy, you really don't understand the concept of conquering a nation, eh?

Thus your denial is evidence to the fact and lack of clear proof is due to your own doing, for you did not accept the challenge which confirms my proof.

The challenge has been accepted and completed:

My claim is that it is possible to use a book one wrote to conquer a nation.
I shall now demonstrate this to be true.

Premise 1: In order to conquer any nation, one needs enough followers to do so.
This is evidenced by many revolutions. The American revolution had enough followers, and as a result, is was successful.

Premise 2: It is possible to use a book that one has written to gain followers
This is evidenced by Karl Marx's following from 'Das Communist Manifesto' which inspired millions of followers. L. Ron Hubbard's religion, Scientology, based upon his books has approximately 100,000 followers.

Conclusion: It has been shown that one needs numbers to conquer a nation, and it has been shown that one can attain a large following with a book or books that one has written. Therefore, it logically follows that one can use the book or books that they have written to conquer nations.

[LiamOS]

The word was corrected. You hapoened to quote the post before the correction was made.

I 'hapoened' to get this one too.

If you're going to call people on their English skills, use the 'SpellCheck' before posting.

And no, I mean "capitalized".

Ahh, yes. America.

Also, please prove that the word English is not to be capitalised.

And to the contrary, you are just talking.

And through my talking, I'm creating coherent posts and logical arguments.

[ChaosBorders]

Response: To the contrary, your proof that I'm making an argument of ignorance is an argument of ignorance? The irony as expected...

I don't think you really understand what that is...did you even read the articles we linked you to?

Here's an abbreviated version:

Claiming to have proven that a statement is true (or false) when all that has actually been proven is that it is not known to be false. If something can not be proven either way, just act like the opinion opposite of yours is inherently sillier, and you can assert that your position must be assumed correct until someone from the other side can prove you wrong. Usually involves an appeal to one's own authority and/or Burden of Proof Fallacy

You have not shown it to be humanly impossible for someone to use a book to inspire followers. You have not shown Allah wrote the Qu'ran. You have not shown any of the list of things Aki pointed out that you have asserted. You are making arguments from ignorance, again and again.

Response: I have shown that it is humanly impossible to use a book invented by a person(s) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation and that Allah originated the qur'an. Proven by the fact that you have failed to accept the challenge but rather run from it. Such is the act of denial, which confirms that it has been proven. Otherwise, you would have used a book invented by a pwson(s) to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation to prove that it is possible. But you haven't. Thus your denial is evidence to the fact and lack of clear proof is due to your own doing, for you did not accept the challenge which confirms my proof.

Showing it to be unlikely does not prove something is impossible. We have shown you can do it without a book, so there is no reason to assume it is impossible USING a book. Unless Mohammed is also an incompetent military commander and incredibly unlikable person. I don't think he was. Do you?

By your reasoning, any specific thing only one person has done is 'humanly impossible'. That is absurd reasoning. I'm the only one to ever teach a team how to beat the Banks In Action program hosted by Junior Achievement. Did I do something humanly impossible?

If I were to use your argument, I could simply say that if it were humanly possible, you would have used a computer to have done so. But you haven't. So it must be humanly impossible to do. Apparently I'm a prophet from God.

That is what you sound like. Do you really not see how faulty that reasoning is?