QUOTE(ragus @ Aug 3 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1294012[/snapback]
Ok, first of all, that was not sarcastic or wasn't meant to be anyway (
I don't do sarcasm... my wife can vouch for that 
).
I think a few here can and would say different.....no disrespect to your wife.
QUOTE(ragus @ Aug 3 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1294012[/snapback]
I replied "oooh, pretty firm statement" because it was just that -- a pretty firm statement. What's sarcastic about that? Never mind, don't answer that. I don't want to get into argument with you on THIS thread, zandore.
Not arguments.....debates.
So it was OK for you to make a "firm statement" but not someone else?
QUOTE(ragus @ Aug 3 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1294012[/snapback]
I didn't mean anything as sarcasm, just that I was pointing out that dude had made a statement there as though it was fact (regarding his statement that angels don't exist).
Just as you made a statement to the effect that angels did exist.
QUOTE(ragus @ Aug 3 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1294012[/snapback]
Since he stated that as though it was fact, I posed the question of if he could prove it, yes. My other statement about people who have evidence of angels but not being able to prove it doesn't go along with what he said about them not existing.
The exact same thing could be said about (off topic) the evolution vs creation debate. Just because you have so called 'evidence' in the Bible does not make it a fact.
QUOTE(ragus @ Aug 3 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]1294012[/snapback]
His statement doesn't fit with what I said (in other words, they've seen something)... yet dude is claiming angels don't exist due to WHAT?
One word for this:
Pareidolia