Quote:
Originally Posted by rodog
To serve what end? All you do is reiterate nonsense.
|
Alright rodog, lets go through your points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodog
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIAagent11
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloDollyLlama
(1) Either folks are misinterpreting the word "atheist" or they're lumping in agnostics as well.
|
(2) No theyre not. |
(3) Well I guess we can add you to the list of people who don't know what atheism is. |
Your argument: I don't know what atheism is, because I write that atheists are not misinterpreting the word atheism.
Well we agree then. My whole point in this thread it that most atheists don't know what they are talking about. I might have been unclear about that in (2).
If we agree, we both don't know what it means or we both do.
Your second argument: I don't know what atheism is, because I write that atheism and agnosticism is lumped together in the study.
The study did not throw together atheism and agnosticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodog
lol You just said that it's true that there are things in the bible that aren't scientific yet it still hasn't been proven false scientifically.
|
Your argument: I contradict myself, because I both say there are things in the bible that are not scientific
and that it has not been proven false scientifically.
Lets look at that quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIAagent11
Okay, all that miracles and parting of the sea stuff is not scientific.
But saying the bible has been scientificly been proven wrong is just dishonest.
|
I was responding to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloDollyLlama
scientific fact has refuted the Bible, completely.
|
Something being 'not scientific' is not the same as 'scientifically proven false'.
My disagreement was with the term 'scientifically proven wrong', if you look at what it means.
How would you ever 'disprove' something that
didn't happen thousands of years ago, using the term proof as scientists do?
If your argument is, that 'scientifically proven wrong' is the same as 'not scientific'
or even 'not scientifically proven and very likely not true', your argument sticks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodog
Then you accused someone else of being dishonest. WOW
|
Your argument: I am a hypocrite because I say there is a difference between 'scientifically proven wrong'
and 'not scientifically proven' while calling others dishonest for calling their opinion a scientific fact.
That's what I wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIAagent11
I said this a few times around here: Declaring your personal opinion as fact makes one question all you say, even when true.
|
I wrote, there is a difference between 'scientifically proven wrong' and 'not scientific'.
Which is true.
I called quotes like that of HelloDollyLlama dishonest for saying that the bible is disproven, quoted above.
Which is his opinion, stated as fact.
Tell me where I go wrong, dear rodog.