Re: So far [OT] you wont believe it

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:39:01 +0100, Simon Dobbs wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:28:01 +0100, Giles wrote (in article
> <pan.2005.09.26.22.28.00.977436@xxxxxxxxx>):
>
>> So you suggest that the best way to counter a position that is not based
>> on rational argument is, err, rational argument.
>
> yes of course- show that the writer is not being rational, by being
> rational yourself.
>
>
> I fail to see your logical objection to this
>
> What Roger was NOT being, however was rational. All he did was call names.

No.On two grounds: Firstly, you said 'counter' the arguments, not make
them look silly. How does one rationally counter a faith based argument?

Secondly, given that Roger followed up various attempts to make a rational
argument, the futility of that was already demonstrated.

Ho hum. Bed

Giles

.

Relevant Pages