Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (aka the argument from ignorance): the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
Now don't think I'm calling anyone ignorant, or stupid. I'm simply saying that most people on this site, if not in the world, argue this argument. It is a flaw in logical thinking.
Today, people are going with this argument for practically anything. Let's look at some:
- The World is flat
- Christianity is false
Why did people say the world was flat? They had no evidence of it being anything but. Today, we see this thinking as just stupid, but back then it was a fact. This is an argument from ignorance. The formula is this:
Statement p is unproved. Statement not-p is unproved.
Not-p is true. p is true.
It's a giant circle of flaws.
Alright, let's take a look at the meaning of ignorance:
ignorance noun:
lack of knowledge or information
It's not calling someone stupid, it's just simply saying you do not hold enough knowledge to back up your argument or thesis. Let's look at the second argument I listed.
Christianity is false. Why? Because there is no evidcence that Jesus was God other than the Bible, which is biased (statement p is unproved, so not-p is true). HOWEVER, there is Josephus, and he talks of Jesus and how he rose from the dead. Of course it isn't eye witness testimonies, just him recalling what people have told him. Just because we have no other evidence doesn't mean it's not out there. And if it isn't, that doesn't mean it's not true. In the same sense, that doesn't mean it is true. HOWEVER, there is more evidence to support Christianity and God than there is to deny it. You just have to look. But that's not what this blog is about.
This blog is about the argument from ignorance.
People, especially on this website, need to stop using this argument. And those who do use it, need to stop callin others ignorant or flawed in thinking. Why? Because those who use this argument are ignorant themselves.
Just think about it. Read these links if you want more information:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
i think that the only appropriate time to label someone as ignorant is when they don 't seek to rid of it. they don't pursue knowledge and chose to remain in their state of mind instead of exploring.
do not believe in the true definition of ignorance. We are all ignorant in omething or another. That doesn't mean we're stupid, or that we're not looking to chnge our thought.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I'm a little bit confused about the statement proven and not proven. If one of them is right then both of them are right? Other than that, yes I agree with you about "ignorance." Some people get so offended if you call them ignorant though. What can we do about that? The more we try to share a point of view with them, the more they're ignoring us.
It's not both are right, but in a way it is. The argument basically says this:
If *grass* isn't proven to exist, then it doesn't.
In the same sense, the other side will take this stance from the arguement:
If *grass* isn't proven to NOT exist, then it does.
*grass* is P. Meaning, if *grass* is not proven, then not-*grass* is true, and vise versa.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Sometimes a word's definition changes over time. It's popular definition, at least. While I agree that the correct definition for ignorance is "lack of knowledge or information," I don't think it stops there. I think twin07 hit the nail on the head when (s)he mentioned the refusal to expand or persue knowledge...
This may be an awful example, but look at the word gay. It origianally meant happy, and now it's expanded to encompass a lot more. But that's just my opinion.
ignorance doesn't mean someone is not trying to look for the truth, or the knowledge they lack. Yes, gay MEANS happy. Fagot MEANS a piece of wood. They are now SLANG words for homosexuals. Ignorant is not a slang word. Ignorant MEANS lack of knowledge. The only way words change definition is if they are used for slang words.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
A fag is also a ciggarette in England.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
my point. Definitions don't change unless the word is used as slang (or other culture for that matter). I admit, I AM ignorant. What I'm ignorant on I won't admit. But that doesn't mean I'm not researching to find the truth and to change my thought.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Slang is only a word that's used convorsationally... In a way 'ignorant' is a slang term. It's used so many times in a negative fashion while it's actual definition isn't a negative one. I wasn't trying to say that the ACTUAL definition of ignorance is not persuing knowlege where you're lacking it, I was simply suggesting that the term could be used in this way.
yes, but I am not using that term. I even put the definition in my blog. I don't want it looked at as another meaning, because it isn't meaning anything but what the definition says. I said I'm not calling anyone stupid, just that they're lacking the knowledge at the time to support their argument or thesis (especially on this site).
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I know what you mean. I get annoyed when someone tries to argue a point they know nothing about.... And I was just trying to bring up the point that 'ignorance' could be used in another way.
I don't know a single atheist who makes the definitive claim "Christianity is false". The claim is that there is no proof the Christianity is true and, with no evidence supporting its truth, that we know of, and lots of evidence contradicting what it says, we believe it is more rational not to accept it as truth.
As a matter of fact, when I wrote a couple of blogs pertaining to the logical fallacies employed in the arguments that upheld Christianity, I made it very clear that I was not in anyway disproving Christianity, merely the arguments for it.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
arguments? Link to the blogs and I will read.
Also, I said "Christianity is false" and further explained because of Jesus. I just wanted to shorten it. What I was implying was that people don't believe Jesus was God or rose frome the dead.
There is evidence to support Christianity, more evidence than contradicting it. The "evidence" to contradict Christianity (in my opinion) is crap people make up to avoid the truth.
If you tell someone something that is true, they don't like to her it. Also, people don't want to believe in Christianity because they don't want to work for salvation or admit that they're going to hell because of their life style. They want everything to be happy and peaceful. Just take, no give.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I don't think people would really make up evidence to contradict Christianity seeing as, if it was true, they would be able to have the chance to live in heavan. I believe that this idea is more true of Christianity, in a way. (Not just Christianity, but all religions) This is because the belief in its truth is based on faith, which denies evidence.
I suck at using html, so i can't link in a reply. If you go to my page and click on recent blog entries, they are entitled Logical Fallacies and The Arguments for God, part 1 and two. They are on the second page.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
make up evidence. But we're told we do. That's a pretty biased statement, not saying mine wasn't. But honestly, you confront anyone with the truth and they back down (okay not anyone but most everyone). Most people (atheists I mean) don't want to admit that they're living a bad life, so they don't believe in Christianity. Our religion is NOT based on blind faith. Yes, on faith, but not BLIND faith. We do NOT deny evidence. Sorry, but that thought you express is just wrong. However, if a Christian gives evidence to an atheist, the atheist will deny the evidence because THEY'RE "religion" is based on faith that there IS NO God.
Just copy the url I'll get it then. HTML isn't that hard once you get the basics down. I can give you a site for help on it if you want.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I said in a way. It's not that you make up evidence, but you lack any non-faith based evidence.
I believe that there is a lot of evidence for things like evolution. That did not make me deny the existence of god since I wasn't really aware of the text and I used to go for the whole non-literal translation. It was logic, in the end, that turned me away from god. And, actually, I do live a good life. As for evidence, I have never been given evidence to support god, nothing good anyway. Clearly misconstrued science, biblical verses, and flawed logic. That is all that I have gotten. However, that does not mean god does not exist. I never make that statement. I only say that I find it very unlikely that god exists.
There is, I suppose, faith based evidence. The belief in spiritual revelations and such, which, one could say removes the blind part from the equation. I'm not sure where I stand on that. However, all religions have similar things. ANd, I don't believe that all religious people have a blind faith.
Here are the URLs
http://www.progressiveu.org/064301-logical-fallacies-and-arguments-for-g...
http://www.progressiveu.org/110331-logical-fallacies-and-arguments-for-g...
I had html down for a while, but it's slipped.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
is not faith or biased. That's a historical document from one who documented documented history.
Second, you must not have looked hard enough for this unbiased evidence, because it is out there. Scientific evidence. Evolution is just a theory. So is the big bang. Anywho, I'll go look at your sites.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
There's a theory of gravity too... do you deny that exists? How about the cell theory (that we're all made up of cells)? There's pretty good evidence for both of those...
Learn the definition of a scientific theory (not as in the type you learn in your little scientific method lecture in high school science class). Then you can talk about Evolution being 'just' a theory.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
Josephus writtings are being disputed at the moment because of many things.
*sighs*
people don't believe Jesus was God or rose frome the dead
Pretty much.
The "evidence" to contradict Christianity (in my opinion) is crap people make up to avoid the truth.
How is it crap to show you flaws in your own religious text? That's an argument I've seen against Christianity (and Judaism). If your text isn't consistent, then it can't be claimed to be completely true. Either one thing is true, or the other is... they both can't be.
And what 'truth' do you think people are avoiding? The fact that God exists? There are plenty of people that believe God exists, but think Christianity is false.
Also, people don't want to believe in Christianity because they don't want to work for salvation or admit that they're going to hell because of their life style.
Explain away my beliefs, then. I believe everyone should be punished for the evil they do. In proportion to how much evil they do. So a serial killer should be punished more than someone who lives a quiet, peaceful life. I strive to be good, and I think I should be punished for whatever evil I cause. But I don't think that not believing in Jesus is reason enough to be sent to hellfire and damnation for all eternity. So my beliefs have nothing to do with not wanting to 'work' towards salvation (I thought Christians didn't have to work... they accept that Jesus bared the punishment for their sins), nor do they have to do with me admitting that I'm going to hell for my lifestyle (I think you're implying something quite different here, but I'll leave it at that).
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
"How is it crap to show you flaws in your own religious text"
Our text isn't flawed. You try to show flaws, but they aren't flaws and we can explain every single thing. Let's all know, I'm Lutheran. Don't believe in purgatory or any craziness like that.
"And what 'truth' do you think people are avoiding"
The truth that they are living a life of sin and need salvation or they're going to Hell. That truth.
Okay. GOD wants to know you, and you to love him. Heaven is a place of LOVE JOY and it is a REWARD for trusting in him, not just believing. It is a reward for doing what he wants and not falling prey to the world. But you CANNOT live a life for God unless you accept him. And you CANNOT get rid of sin unless you accept that Jesus/God saved you. You don't repent. And no, we don't "work" towards salvation, in the normal sense. But we live a life for God, that means doing what God tells us to do or wants us to do, even if we think it is wrong or stupid at the time. Jesus bared our punishment, but we still have to repent and change the way we live.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
I'm not going to get into the consistencies of the Bible. You need not look past the first two books of Genesis to see that. But, of course, since it's the Old Testament, it doesn't matter, does it.
You believe that God punishes the people that live wholesome, good lives, far better than those of many Christians. Whether heaven is a reward or not, God is unjustly punishing those that do not believe in him. That's not right.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
He is not UNJUSTLY punishing them. They're denying his existence, so they are not protected from Satan, which then they pretty much chose to go to Hell. If you have the Holy Spirit, you are protected from Satan. It's not unjust, because he's not punishing anyone. People are clearly choosing their path. God cannot FORCE anyone to believe in something they don't want to, that is why we have free will. He wants you to know him to seek him out. He wants you to realize that we could all be going to Hell, that he didn't have to give us a second chance. But by his grace he did! He loves us, you just have to love him for the reward. That's all he asks. I don't think that's unfair. He sent his son, his own flesh, himself, to be TORTURED for our sins so we can have a second chance. After that, I think asking of us to love Him isn't too much to ask.
Also, the OT does count. The laws may not as much because it was all things we had to do for salvation which Jesus' death nulled all those. But, it still counts.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
But god could give people better reasons to believe in him, rather then forcing them to accept without evidence.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
all around you man. What about the bible story of the Rich man and Lazarus? But there is evidence. It's not blind faith, I have said that before.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
There is "all around you man." Like what?
"What about the bible story of the Rich man and Lazarus?" What about it?
"But there is evidence." I'm waiting for some.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Also, the OT does count. The laws may not as much because it was all things we had to do for salvation which Jesus' death nulled all those. But, it still counts.
Inconsistency in the first two chapters of Genesis. Explain away... I wasn't even talking about the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Numbers. I was talking about Genesis.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
inconsistencies? Tell me what inconsistencies you are talking about and I will explain them.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Read the first two books. If you can't find the inconsistency, you probably can't explain it away. But since you seem so incapable of doing it yourself...
Genesis 1: Vegetation, animals (first water and air, then land), man (and woman).
Genesis 2: Man, vegetation, animals (first land, then air... no mention of water), then woman
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
is that all!? How do YOU explain that? The Hebrew mind set was that they went and explained it, THEN the filled in the details. That has got to be the dumbest "inconsistency" I've heard yet. If you don't like my answer, tell me how YOU explain it. It's just the way they wrote and thought: first explanation, then details.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Except the details don't back up the original story. So that explanation doesn't really work. And I said you didn't have to look past the first two books to find an inconsistency, not that that was the only one I could come up with. Unfortunately, I'm unbelievably tired right now and don't really have time to go looking for inconsistencies for you.
As for how I'd explain it... I like the way my history professor does: they were intended to convey two separate meanings. As to what those meanings are, I'll leave up to you.
Nice try, though.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
They said water once, they didn't think it was needed to say it again. And maybe it just was translated wrong. We're still learning that to translate the Bible we need to look back at old old old aramaic and hebrew and greek
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Donald Rumsefeld did this in like 4 lines. Keep working on it.
are you talking about/saying? Huh?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
it' s a habit now...------anyway
people who hold a certain belief contrary to what a religion or philosophy says.
it does not mean that it makes the actual religion, and philosophy, wrong or false
what is wrong is to shove/force/push one's way of thinking and belief and religion--whatever the reasoning is--on someone who does not want it, where it is not welcome
sharing opinions and personal beliefs is great- the problem is when people can't accept that everyone looks at the world and ideas such as religion differently
therefore- your fallacy of ignorance does not apply to most people here, it's not ignorance, it's our own perspective
"Things have a life of their own. It's just a matter of waking up their souls."
--Gabriel García Márquez
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
I don't FORCE what the truth is on people. Yes, it is truth. That's not a personal belief or thought, it's a fact. The evidence is out there. Fallacy of ignorance still does apply. Why? Because they use references in replying from a Catholic view (when they are not religious at all) to point out something to a Lutheran.
I didn't even say this argument was used specifically on religion. I was pointing out that many people on this site use this argument, not just for religion but almost everything.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
MY point was that your consistent/constant effort to tell and preach, such as here "Yes, it is truth. That's not a personal belief or thought, it's a fact. The evidence is out there," that Christianity (Lutheran or any other sect) is the ultimate and absolute truth----Is only the TRUTH to you and only a FACT to people who are believers
you keep thinking that we are saying that your Truth is not THE TRUTH , It is the TRUTH but only to believers and followers who choose to take it as the truth
it's not our ignorance that keeps us from this "FACT " you keep talking about
It's just how we think, it's our perspective, personal choice and thinking that we do not want to accept your fact as THE FACT
it's only a FACT TO YOU and other beleivers, not everyone--- when you say our ignorance is keeping us- I think you're wrong
"Things have a life of their own. It's just a matter of waking up their souls."
--Gabriel García Márquez
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
doesn't deny the truth. It is not truth for just those who believe, it is the truth for EVERYONE. You may not accept it as fact or truth, and yes that is your choice. BUT just because you don't believe doesn't mean it's not right. It's not just a fact to me and others, it is for everyone, whether they take it as a fact or not.
This is not a major thing of ignorance. Why? Because it's Satan's doing. He blinds people and lies to them. Think about it:
IF there was a God and there was a Satan, don't you think that Satan would want to confuse people so they won't be rewarded with heaven? Don't you think that Satan would want to say no matter what religion, or no religion, you are you'll be rewarded by your acts?
I'm not saying God is an if, he is there, but for those who don't believe think about it.
If there is no God, no one right way, what is the point of living a good life?
Just think about it.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
different than a non believer's - short and simple---I do not need to see it your way but you want people to see it your way and accept the "Truth" and "Fact" to be "THE" Truth and Fact...well not so simple, we are not ignorant when we reach our decisions of not accepting what other's or certain religions want us to accept and believe
this cycle will once again never end...i just repeated what i said in the last comment and you still don't get my point but I do understand what you are saying
I just passionately Disagree with it
and"Things have a life of their own. It's just a matter of waking up their souls."
--Gabriel García Márquez
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
or anything. But don't expect to say something against the truth without be coming back. And again, I never said you were ignorant, and not ignorant by your choice. If you are it is because of Satan and the world.
I get your point. Don't assume I don't. I understand, you don't see it as truth or fact. But just because someone doesn't believe the truth or fact doesn't make the truth or fact false.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
"It is not truth for just those who believe, it is the truth for EVERYONE." Prove it.
"You may not accept it as fact or truth, and yes that is your choice." Yes. Just like it's your choice to commit your life to serving something that probably doesn't exist.
"BUT just because you don't believe doesn't mean it's not right." Just because you do believe doesn't make it not wrong.
"It's not just a fact to me and others, it is for everyone, whether they take it as a fact or not." I'll take it as a fact when (drumroll) there's some evidence for it!
"This is not a major thing of ignorance." Not exactly sure what that means.
"Why? Because it's Satan's doing. He blinds people and lies to them." That is, if Satan exists.
"Think about it" I have and do and will.
"IF there was a God and there was a Satan, don't you think that Satan would want to confuse people so they won't be rewarded with heaven?" If there was a god, which I deny and if there was a satan, which I deny and if they were what you say they are, which I deny, then, yes, I suppose that would be the case. Fortunately I don't have to worry about that.
"Don't you think that Satan would want to say no matter what religion, or no religion, you are you'll be rewarded by your acts?" Well, I think that if there was a benevolent god, then that would be the case. If your malevolent god existed, why would he need Satan?
"I'm not saying God is an if, he is there, but for those who don't believe think about it." Well, I do say that god is an if and a pretty big if at that. Perhaps, one of the biggest ifs ever. And, like I said, I do think about it. You have used circular logic in a very funny way. If stan was real, he would trick people into not believing in Christianity. Since people don't follow Christianity, stan must be real. Therefore, god must be real.
"If there is no God, no one right way, what is the point of living a good life?" What's the point of life? Living a fufilling life. Why be good? Because, most people will reward you for being good, while acts that most people consider bad tend to have consequences. But, really, it comes to our morals, developed to help us survive in groups.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Who gave you the feeling to decide what was right and wrong? Who gave you the thought to reward those good?
See, God REWARDS those who FOLLOW him and LIVE FOR HIM, not just a life of goodness they think they are doing.
Evidence is out there, but you probably don't believe it because it's "biased" as you would say.
God is NOT a big if.
If you saw God or Jesus or an Angel, would you then believe it? Or would you still say it is false and what you saw was you having a dream or hallucination? If He spoke to you would you think you were crazy?
What would it take to have you acknowledge his existence or at least get it from being a big if?
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
"Who gave you the feeling to decide what was right and wrong? Who gave you the thought to reward those good?" Who made you the ultimate judge of truth?
"See, God REWARDS those who FOLLOW him and LIVE FOR HIM, not just a life of goodness they think they are doing." Good for him. I still say that he has issues if he allows people to suffer eternally for being wrong.
"If you saw God or Jesus or an Angel, would you then believe it?" Yes. I would.
"Or would you still say it is false and what you saw was you having a dream or hallucination? If He spoke to you would you think you were crazy?" That depends on the situation.
"What would it take to have you acknowledge his existence or at least get it from being a big if?" Evidence. Non-Scriptural, Evidence. Evidence that I would accept withput already believing.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"Who gave you the feeling to decide what was right and wrong? Who gave you the thought to reward those good?" The two fundamental laws of the universe. No one, I thought it my self.
"If you saw God or Jesus or an Angel, would you then believe it? Or would you still say it is false and what you saw was you having a dream or hallucination? If He spoke to you would you think you were crazy?" Yes, Probably not, unless you know it came while I was asleep. I might.
I just want to point out something that your own source says, but which you seem to have missed (if we take your various responses above to be indicative of the "logic" are are offering)...
> B. If one argues that God or telepathy,
> ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because
> their existence has not been proven
> beyond a shadow of doubt, then this
> fallacy occurs.
>
> C. On the other hand, if one argues that
> God, telepathy, and so on do exist because
> their non-existence has not been proved,
> then one argues fallaciously as well.
It is actually kind of humorous that you point to this source as an argument against your opponents, when your own offerings are similarly indicative of the same fallacy. I do have to point out, however, that you are misrepresenting the typical atheist's position in any case, since very few atheists will offer you a definitive denial of the possible existence of "god." They will merely point out to you that the evidence is lacking, and suggest that it is inellectually irresponsible to reach conclusion that "god exists" without having any actual evidence to back up that statement.
I think that perhaps you should review your own source a little more carefully, and take the opportunity to learn a bit more about informal logica and the various fallacies which it instructs us to watch out for. Here is one in particular that I think you should review...
Petitio Principii
TTFN,
percivale
P.S. I know you said that this isn't the subject of your blog, but I do have to point out just one little additional error since you did decide to mention it...
> HOWEVER, there is Josephus, and he talks
> of Jesus and how he rose from the dead. Of
> course it isn't eye witness testimonies, just
> him recalling what people have told him.
There is only ONE reference to "Jesus" as "the Christ" in Josephus' writings. It is found in Antiquities of the Jews...
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
This passage, however, is NOT generally accepted as being a part of the original text, and appears to have been added by a later author.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
to mention that part. I did say "in the same way" or "vise versa".
Why do you want to push buttons? Why do you want to start a topic that is not related to this blog? That's just irritating. Don't do it on my blogs, please.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
> Why do you want to start a topic that
> is not related to this blog? That's just
> irritating. Don't do it on my blogs, please.
YOU were the one who first mentioned Josephus. I simply corrected the erroneous assumption that went along with your comment. If you don't want to talk about something, don't mention it in your blog to begin with.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
And yet you've been doing it this entire commenting spree. You are ignorant. You are ignorant of science and REFUSE to become educated.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
I am ignorant of science? No. And I don't REFUSE anything. I am educated. Thanks for saying I'm dumb when I've not said ANYTHING bad about anyone! That's rude.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
You continually misrepresent the idea of theories. Obviously you do not know what a scientific theory encompasses. I have told you a few times now, but you still say it. Thus, you refuse to become educated about it.
And I did not call you dumb. I called you ignorant. You said yourself in your blog that everyone was ignorant, to some degree. I also didn't say you said anything bad about anyone.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
The funny thing about this whole blog is that you continue to fall prey to exactly the logical fallacy that you're blogging about.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
my head is hurting, i have basically realized that in most of my comments(a few other people too) I am making a point that is constantly being ignored and not addressed and the message is not being processed correctly or maybe I just don't know how to get it across plainly and simply
aish...i'm gonna drink the tea i just made and try to find some humorous kdrama to watch to release the head ache and stress I brought upon myself
"The good life, let's go on a living spree
Shit they say the best things in life are free" --*K A N Y E
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
I'm not meaning to. Try and tell me again.
Tea is good. Love tea... mmmm tea.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117
Islam---
I also don't want to argue when both sides aren't understanding or getting the message across
i think the tea I am drinking is not the tea you love, well you can tell me if it is...
I drink black tea with a bit of cream and sugar, I do love iced tea but my mornings and nights are made better because of black tea *_*
"The good life, let's go on a living spree
Shit they say the best things in life are free" --*K A N Y E
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
What kind of black tea? I work at a coffee/tea store and I LOVE teas, except for those that have been smoked dry (blech smokey flavor). There are several black teas at the store I love with milk and honey. Do you like peppermint teas? Lavender? Greens? Reds? Sorry, I'm kind of a tea expert at the store. Not fully yet, still have to try several of theirs, but I've had several too.
And this same progeny of evils comes from our debate, from our dissension; We are their parents and original. -- A Midsummer Night's Dream Act II, Scene I, Lines 115-117