Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Ok, let's dissect this:

BaldFriede wrote: The T wrote: Sorry Trade but that sounds a little un-scientifical... All the german people i've met (my sister lives in Germany, I studied in a German School) are very different. You can't throw all of them in the same sack. Some are (think they are) perfect, some don't. Many accept errors and corrections, many don't.  Mike, of course, is God. We agreed on that. He's beyond all of this.  Mike certainly behaves as if he thinks he is God.

This is obviously manipulative. "Mike certainly does X", when in reality it's far from certain that I'm doing this. Do I claim to possess any supernatural power or knowledge? I would say that I'm acting more rationally than Iván, and I know that you would object to that, but to add the modifier "certainly" when in fact it's your own opinion ...

BaldFriede wrote: in one of his post he claimed "I am rational", which I considered to be especially funny.

I happen to consider your baldness funny, but I keep it to myself because it's irrelevant and a silly notion. Well, maybe not so silly since you Gaia figure has a full head of hair, but still. Of course you'll still have to show me the post where I made the claim, and we'll also have to consider the context of the post - I'm pretty sure that even if I used those three words, the context wouldn't suggest that I meant that I'm 100% completely always ever rational.

BaldFriede wrote: No human being is [ fully ] rational; we are all full of emotions which influence all we think and do.

Yes, and I've said that myself repeatedly, in this thread and elsewhere - there you go building straw men again. I added the modifier "fully" though, since it is obvious that some people are more rational than others. And no, I'm not referring to me or any other participants of this thread here - I'm speaking generally, and it is well known that some people are more emotional, while others are more rational. It's in our nature to have both those capabilities.

BaldFriede wrote: Another thing I find funny is that from the fact there are contradictions in the bible Mike concludes that it can used to prove anything. Imagine a book in which a bunch of  top scientists who have different opinions on a certain matter all explained their positions in a single book. That book would be full of contradictions. But would it really be useless, as Mike claims the bible is?

My notion that the bible can be used to prove anything doesn't solely rely on the contradictions which the book inarguably contains. There's also the fact that it was written in a society that was very different from our society today, in an ancient language. There are simply so many ways to interpret the verses, and the contradictions make it particularly easy to support completely contradictory claims on the same book.

Seriously, will you keep building facile analogies? There must be ways for you to make better use of your spare time.

I took a couple of hours to read through it, but on the whole my condescension tends to be very "spur of the moment".

Mike will give you a rational answer.  He has them for everything.

I hear UFO's all the time. Then i look up and I'm like "oh, it's a plane." Then it becomes an IFO.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Another thing I find funny is that from the fact there are contradictions in the bible Mike concludes that it can used to prove anything. Imagine a book in which a bunch of  top scientists who have different opinions on a certain matter all explained their positions in a single book. That book would be full of contradictions. But would it really be useless, as Mike claims the bible is? My notion that the bible can be used to prove anything doesn't solely rely on the contradictions which the book inarguably contains. There's also the fact that it was written in a society that was very different from our society today, in an ancient language. There are simply so many ways to interpret the verses, and the contradictions make it particularly easy to support completely contradictory claims on the same book. Seriously, will you keep building facile analogies? There must be ways for you to make better use of your spare time.

it is you who calls the analogy "facile", hence it must be,.  No-one doubts the bible was written in a different society, But that was not your argument, Mike. You mentioned Ehrman and that he found contradictions in the book, and you pointed out what an expert he is, so I thought that this was of some importance to your argument. If it now turns out that it isn't I of course retract my comment.

Vibrationbaby wrote: Look. There was nothing there. We got a radar signature but the f**king thing wasn't there. You wouldn't believe the debrief took about 12 hours. I needed a stiff drink afterwards, so did my nav.

It's like Scrooge and Jacob Marley,  Indigestion, a bit of bad British beef. 

No wait, It was a guy in a robe sitting on a cloud you idiot

You could have seen God and you missed it, how lame is that  


Edited by Trademark - July 22 2010 at 14:34

BaldFriede wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Another thing I find funny is that from the fact there are contradictions in the bible Mike concludes that it can used to prove anything. Imagine a book in which a bunch of  top scientists who have different opinions on a certain matter all explained their positions in a single book. That book would be full of contradictions. But would it really be useless, as Mike claims the bible is? My notion that the bible can be used to prove anything doesn't solely rely on the contradictions which the book inarguably contains. There's also the fact that it was written in a society that was very different from our society today, in an ancient language. There are simply so many ways to interpret the verses, and the contradictions make it particularly easy to support completely contradictory claims on the same book. Seriously, will you keep building facile analogies? There must be ways for you to make better use of your spare time. it is you who calls the analogy "facile", hence it must be,.  No-one doubts the bible was written in a different society, But that was not your argument, Mike. You mentioned Ehrman and that he found contradictions in the book, and you pointed out what an expert he is, so I thought that this was of some importance to your argument. If it now turns out that it isn't I of course retract my comment.

Aha, the bible was written in two different ancient languages: Hebrew and Greek.  The Olde English of the King James version is sufficiently removed from modern US English (at least) that it has added more layers of difficulty to translation. 

By the way: I always find it amazing that all physicists accept that matter bends space but no-one ever asked "which way"? It would be the first question I would ask.

BaldFriede wrote: By the way: I always find it amazing that all physicists accept that matter bends space but no-one ever asked "which way"? It would be the first question I would ask.

a little to the left.