To serve what end? All you do is reiterate nonsense.

__________________
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/smpunditz

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 27/1/10

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his lack thereof.
109:8!

21% of people are retarded...

__________________
Act A Fool!

It's back (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es..

Good we agree, dear.
Yes.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/re...y-findings.pdf

__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his lack thereof.
109:8!

I knew it. America is so religious even the atheists believe

__________________
Difficult.

Last time I checked 21% does not constitute MOST it constitutes 1/5. Bad math on your part.

Strawman. I never said you lumped atheism and agnosticism together.

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.

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.

__________________
My Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/smpunditz

The Bible is filles with scientific impossibilities.
That does not disprove it.

I'm sorry to say, but you admit that you don't seem know what a scientific proof is.

Yes, but you don't address my point.
You said, that I dont know what atheism is. Your argument for that is that 21% does not constitute most?
True, but that is not my only argument.

Many so-called atheists don't know what they talk about, even if that study didn't exist.
There are a few reasons. Mainly that it is a popular movement and popular movements are often followed by many who are ignorant to its real meaning.

Many declare to know there is no god without evidence.
Saying you know something without evidence is having faith.
And I point out that declaring to be against religion, and following a faith is not knowing what you talk about.

Then what is your argument for me not knowing what atheism is?

I suggest you start reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Just because it isn't there doesn't mean you can disprove it.

'Not scientific' is a term someone else came up with, I think it is supposed to mean 'not true'.

To proove there is a talking snake, you would have to find one, or deduct its existence mathematically from something else that is proven.
You can't really prove there is no talking snake. How to do that?
You can argue that it is very unlikely, but you cant proove it.

__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his lack thereof.
109:8!

I consider myself one of the few "true agnostics" because whether I am theistic or atheistic depends heavily on mood and other stupid variables. I swing back and forth and have come to believe that this is my normal state.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin

Actually 6%. Somebody pointed that out.
And I think Sadistic was right... At least some of them were just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with the poll.
It's also possible they clicked or marked the wrong box at one point or another.
Or maybe they changed their minds while taking the survey.

__________________
"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

-George Carlin