Quote:
Originally Posted by CIAagent11
Alright rodog, lets go through your points. 
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. |
Last time I checked 21% does not constitute MOST it constitutes 1/5. Bad math on your part.
Quote:
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.
|
Strawman. I never said you lumped atheism and agnosticism together.
Quote:
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.
I was responding to this.
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.
|
Riddle me this how exactly do you distinguish between scientifically being proven wrong and not being scientific? I would imagine talking snakes, resurrecting the dead and creationism all fall into both categories.
Quote:
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.
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.
|
Your distinction is irrelevant. Many aspects of the bible have been proven false utterly and completely. It isn't just unscientific it's filled with scientific impossibilities.