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.
™ Version 4.2