| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Ivan_Melgar_M 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
 Posted: December 06 2010 at 18:01 |
Last reply to you Textbook.
No students learn from teachers, but intelligent people learn from discussions.
This is not a debate trying to prove who's right or wrong or to convince others to think like us, we are here to talk about issues that interest to this community.
I learn from discussions with people who don't think like me, if I was willing to only listen the arguments of those who agree with me, I would learn nothing.
And yes we learn from others, unless we believe we know everything,
Iván
BTW: The you're a chicken tactic doesn't work with me since I was 10 years old.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2010 at 18:07
|
|
|
 |
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 18:43 |
Maybe not but you're still a chicken.
You are afraid to talk to someone who dislikes religion as aggressively and openly as I do. You only want to talk to nice gentle people who don't savage your points. You are afraid to face reality and make up ridiculous fairy stories to make yourself feel better.
btw "The pope apologised for the child abuse"
"Nazi party apologises for WWII, all is forgiven"
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 19:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 20:10 |
Ivan, these childish tactics almost seem to be an acknowledgement on your part that your stance doesn't make sense.
Is that a roast chicken?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 20:25 |
Ivan at work:
Opposition lawyer: Your honour, council for the defence is using specious reasoning to lead the jury.
Ivan: OH YOU WOULD SAY THAT WOULDN'T YOU! You just want to trap me and prove me wrong! You... you troll!
Opposition lawyer: Um... anyway I have documents here which will clearly show that various statements he has made are in fact erroneous-
Ivan: Stop trolling! You're just trying to prove me wrong! Well it's not going to work! We're not here to prove each other wrong! I'm not trying to prove you wrong and anyway I can't be proven wrong because I'm not wrong! Which is to say that you're wrong.
Opposition: Yes... anyway I also have corroborating statements from various witness which are mutually incompatible with some of the claims he has admitted.
Ivan: *holds up picture of a silhouette of a man holding a roast chicken on a stick*
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 20:28 |
Come on Textbook, leave (at least this discussion) for good... Trolls usually don't last this much. Ivan has fallen because he loves discussions and loves to have the last word  (who doesn't really) but your recent posts should be enough...
And besides, the war between Ivan and Mike is too interesting to have to suffer your posts.....
Edited by The T - December 06 2010 at 20:31
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 06 2010 at 20:38 |
I don't think I'm trolling. I'm just very facetious and less polite than Mike. Trolling, at least to my mind, would be that I had no point and was just being a dickhead. However I really believe that Ivan does a very poor job at arguing his points and responding to criticisms, so poor that it's almost upsetting and I am attempting to point this out.
However I am aware that the whole thing is subjective and am well aware that I may appear to be a dickhead with no point. Oh heck why "may appear" perhaps I just am one.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 04:32 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
That's the most idiotic response I've ever heard from you. You're either a complete and utter idiot, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from authority. Take your pick. BTW: This isn't an insult, because I think the latter is correct - but of course I could be wrong. |
No ;Mike, you are the one rubbing the Amazing Atheist's videos in our faces and telling us how much you agree with him....Ergo, if you quote him with such respect, you are placing him as a figure of authority or an eminence in the field:
The argument of authority is simple
- Source A says that p is true.(We have seen the 3 or 5 videos of the amazing Atheist you posted with him insisting in how religion is idiotic)
- Source A is authoritative.(At least for you The Amazing Atheist is authoritative, if you quoted him is because you consider him an authority....I wouldn't post the video of someone I don't respect to support my claims )
- Therefore, p is true.(Again, at least for you and the Amazing Atheist)
So, calling me an idiot won't hide that you quoted The Amazing Atheist as an authority several times, and will only prove that when the arguments end, the insults come, even if you use an emoticon.
|
I didn't call you an idiot, I effectively called you a mis-representer of arguments.
Show me one post where I mentioned TAA and presented him as a figure of authority. LOL, the guy is a comedian - he posts funny rants about this and that on YouTube, and besides that also has serious things to say about many topics, including religion. I simply think that sometimes he makes points that are worth considering - but nobody should take his word for anything - or mine, or anybody else's.
When it comes to science, I may take the word of a respected scientist as authoritative - if he/she is talking about things that are in his area of expertise. But in your case it's medical doctors making claims about supernatural events. That is the definition of the argument from authority: They're out of their field, yet you try to use their degrees to make it appear like they're more qualified to identify a miracle than you or me. All they are more qualified to do is to determine "there's no apparent medical cause, based on our knowledge today".
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
It's also easy to laugh because the way this is set up, your argumentation is doomed to fail no matter what you come up with. If the premise isn't sound, nothing can ever follow. In this case, the flaw in the premise being - guess what - the argument from ignorance. |
Mike, your inference reaches an opposite conclusion, but yo still start from a premise of ignorance, you say I can't explain it, so it can be anything except a miracle
I know my belief is based in faith, your denial of my belief is based exclusively in the premise that if you don't know how this happens, it can be anything except a miracle
|
No. I'm saying that if I don't know how something happens, the least likely explanation is "miracle". The most likely explanation, based on cumulative empirical data, is that we don't yet understand all the (naturalistic) mechanisms that might explain such an event. That is simply much more likely than the supernatural explanation.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
"It means no doctor knows how to cure it......Isn't that enough?"
No, that isn't enough - unless you also claim that doctors are infallible. Of course they're not, which is why we can't deduce from the fact that they can't find a natural cure that there isn't one.
|
No Mike, but your explanations (without any evidence) for the fallibility of the doctors, neither your opinions prove that my conclusion (based on observation and faith) is wrong, even if you loose your temper and insult as you have done repeatedly calling us ignorants, delusional and even idiots I believe..
Iván
|
I'm perfectly calm.  I'm not interested in "proving you wrong", I'm just trying to show that your explanation is much more likely to be wrong than mine is. You said yourself that you *need* faith in order to believe it. It is the religious people (in this case: the Vatican) who have set this up to look like science enters into this - not us atheists.
And since you still don't get it:
1. Calling somebody "ignorant of something" is not the same as calling someone "an ignorant". 2. "Delusion" has several definitions - one of them is "false belief", and that's how I (and Dawkins, too, by the way) am using it. Calling your belief a "delusion" simply means that I think that it's not true, that it is obvious from the arguments I and other atheists present that it's more likely to be false than to be true, and that you can only continue believing it by ignoring the available evidence. And it so happens that that is just one of the definitions of faith ("belief in the face of contrary evidence"). 3. See the first answer in this post about the "idiot".
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 07 2010 at 04:34
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 11:58 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I didn't call you an idiot, I effectively called you a mis-representer of arguments. |
Didn't misrepresented the arguments Mike, I did exactly what you did, I presented an opinion of a an expert in medical science (in my case) and you presented the opinion of a moron like The Amazing Atheist.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Show me one post where I mentioned TAA and presented him as a figure of authority. LOL, the guy is a comedian - he posts funny rants about this and that on YouTube, and besides that also has serious things to say about many topics, including religion. I simply think that sometimes he makes points that are worth considering - but nobody should take his word for anything - or mine, or anybody else's. |
Mike, I could never guess that you are posting a 5 or 10 minutes video of a guy you believe nobody should take his word for anything...What's the point?
But since you say he has serious things to say.....You are considering him an authority, otherwise, you wouldn''t had posted him.
If he has so serious things to say about many issues...Why he calls himself The Amazing Atheist in direct reference to religion, if it isn't because religion is his main and only target?
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
When it comes to science, I may take the word of a respected scientist as authoritative - if he/she is talking about things that are in his area of expertise. But in your case it's medical doctors making claims about supernatural events. That is the definition of the argument from authority: They're out of their field, yet you try to use their degrees to make it appear like they're more qualified to identify a miracle than you or me. All they are more qualified to do is to determine "there's no apparent medical cause, based on our knowledge today". |
No Mike, the Medical Doctor can't decide if something is a miracle or not, he has no authority, he only declares:
- There's no medical explanation.
- The person was in a determined place at the time of healing
- The person is completely cured
- After some years pass he reaffirms that the sickness hasn't re-appeared
The Church is the one who decides with the information provided by this doctor and four more, plus a neutral opinion of any respected medical institution with no connection with the Church, if it's a miracle.
So at the end: - The Doctor talks about medicine where he is an authority.
- The Church declares if it's a miracle where she is an authority.
Now, IMO The Amazing Atheist is an authority in stupidity and arrogance without any base..
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
No. I'm saying that if I don't know how something happens, the least likely explanation is "miracle". The most likely explanation, based on cumulative empirical data, is that we don't yet understand all the (naturalistic) mechanisms that might explain such an event. That is simply much more likely than the supernatural explanation. |
This is a different issue, you don't believe but you don't deny.
Still, saying it's less likely without any evidence of the contrary is not very scientific.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I'm perfectly calm. I'm not interested in "proving you wrong", I'm just trying to show that your explanation is much more likely to be wrong than mine is. You said yourself that you *need* faith in order to believe it. It is the religious people (in this case: the Vatican) who have set this up to look like science enters into this - not us atheists. |
Mike, you lost your temper more than once, I now you for years and it's easy to notice, when you are calm, you debate, when you loose your temper, the harsh adjectives start to flow.
Now Mike, my explanation is not more or less likely than your's, both are at the most intelligent guesses, because there's no evidence to support any of them.with absolute certitude.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
And since you still don't get it:
1. Calling somebody "ignorant of something" is not the same as calling someone "an ignorant". 2. "Delusion" has several definitions - one of them is "false belief", and that's how I (and Dawkins, too, by the way) am using it. Calling your belief a "delusion" simply means that I think that it's not true, that it is obvious from the arguments I and other atheists present that it's more likely to be false than to be true, and that you can only continue believing it by ignoring the available evidence. And it so happens that that is just one of the definitions of faith ("belief in the face of contrary evidence"). 3. See the first answer in this post about the "idiot".
|
Tomato - Tomate........Sound different but are the same Mike, sand you know what's your intention, of course with much more class than other guy, but you are trying to provoke a reaction, I was born in the night, but not tonight, I know when somebody is provoking, I deal with provocations every day at court.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 07 2010 at 12:01
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 16:14 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
but intelligent people learn from discussions. |
You've been to these forums long enough to know better.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 16:24 |
|
Ivan, why is the Church an authority in miracles?
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 16:41 |
1. Church defines what makes a miracle a miracle.
2. Science, being credible as it is, declines to say for certain what an unexplainable event is.
3. Lo and behond, the Church, having previously decided what makes a miracle a miracle now has the authority to decide if what it is is a miracle.
The really funny thing is that the Church is apparently an authority on unprovable things that could all be false.
In other news, I'm an authority on Northeast Indianan Wild Unicorns.
|
|
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 16:43 |
seventhsojourn wrote:
Paravion wrote:
It would be a disaster to assert and accept that all unexplainable phenomena is ' a miracle'. Surely we need curiosity and further investigation.
In linguistics, explanations are in many cases impossible. (theorist speak of theories with varying degrees of explanatory force)
There's no explanation as to why English allows
Peter loves Mary
but not
*Peter love Mary
We can't explain why Greenlandic has only 3 phonemic vowels and Danish 9.
But it's highly likely that it's not because God wants it that way. A lot of 'phenomena' just has no reason - so it currently seems.
Also, it's presumptious to think that humanity (at present and future stages) is capable of explaining and grasping all the complexities of the world. But it's stupid, lazy and far worse to invent some fairy-tale like explanations involving Gods and miracles in order to make sense of the world. |
Hi Paravion 
Many fairy tales have existed for thousands of years, but they tend not to involve belief in the tale and they do not usually take place during an actual period of time. Although there are even some religious fairy tales.
Thing is, and I don't for one minute think you're trying to belittle theists, that this kind of argument just seems to amount to name-calling. Not that you're the first to use it, mind you. |
I've nothing against fairy-tales. It's an attitude towards explanations I'm pointing at. Particularly a tendency (luckily not very common) to accept less-likely explanations of religious sorts when confronted with a unexplainable phenomena.
The diversity and development of different languages cannot be adequately and completely explained. That does not make the explanation presented in the myth of the tower of Bable anymore feasible - as it is pure fiction.
I'm okay with a conception of religion as a set of beliefs. I'm less okay with a conception of religion as something with an explanatory force.
As long an I'm not obliged to adopt any views and accept any explanations - people can be as crazy as they please and believe in whatever they want - I've absolutely nothing against religious or crazy people - but I would never accept an explanation that requires of me to imagine some divine source of creation who has human traits like will and intention.
Edited by Paravion - December 07 2010 at 16:45
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 17:58 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
And since you still don't get it:
1. Calling somebody "ignorant of something" is not the same as calling someone "an ignorant".
2. "Delusion" has several definitions - one of them is "false belief", and that's how I (and Dawkins, too, by the way) am using it. Calling your belief a "delusion" simply means that I think that it's not true, that it is obvious from the arguments I and other atheists present that it's more likely to be false than to be true, and that you can only continue believing it by ignoring the available evidence. And it so happens that that is just one of the definitions of faith ("belief in the face of contrary evidence").
3. See the first answer in this post about the "idiot". |
Tomato - Tomate........Sound different but are the same Mike, sand you know what's your intention, of course with much more class than other guy, but you are trying to provoke a reaction, I was born in the night, but not tonight, I know when somebody is provoking, I deal with provocations every day at court.
Iván |
This isn't a court of law and not every statement directed at you is a provocation. I have explained both "ignorant" and "delusional" several times yet you persist in deliberately misinterpreting the meanings because it suits you to do so.
|
|
What?
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 18:24 |
Ivan insists on acting victimised by every statement anybody makes because it gives him the moral highground and makes him appear sympathetic.
However with me he was actually right to do because I did swing on him a bit ;)
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 20:03 |
I think we already discussed this, but it was a wee while ago now.
Why is the Church an authority in miracles? Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic constitution, or decree, in 1983 that set out the new rules for the canonization of saints. Part of the process of being officially recognized as a saint involves the approval of miracles. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints (the department that oversees the process, made up of a Cardinal Prefect and Bishops) examines all relevant documents and passes judgement on the alleged miracle. The new statutes replaced the old laws and procedures.
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 20:22 |
But that's tautological. The church is an authority on miracles because the church made itself an authority on miracles. That's not even slightly compelling for a skeptic.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 07 2010 at 20:39 |
Dean wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
And since you still don't get it:
1. Calling somebody "ignorant of something" is not the same as calling someone "an ignorant".
2. "Delusion" has several definitions - one of them is "false belief", and that's how I (and Dawkins, too, by the way) am using it. Calling your belief a "delusion" simply means that I think that it's not true, that it is obvious from the arguments I and other atheists present that it's more likely to be false than to be true, and that you can only continue believing it by ignoring the available evidence. And it so happens that that is just one of the definitions of faith ("belief in the face of contrary evidence").
3. See the first answer in this post about the "idiot". |
Tomato - Tomate........Sound different but are the same Mike, sand you know what's your intention, of course with much more class than other guy, but you are trying to provoke a reaction, I was born in the night, but not tonight, I know when somebody is provoking, I deal with provocations every day at court.
Iván |
This isn't a court of law and not every statement directed at you is a provocation. I have explained both "ignorant" and "delusional" several times yet you persist in deliberately misinterpreting the meanings because it suits you to do so. |
You are right Dean, not all.
But I know Mike's style, and he provokes, but in his case he takes care not to insult as certain troll.
He has accepted this, he wants to create a reaction and I'm ok with that, this is why I take so much time replying people like him or you, even when I don't agree, and why I decided to avoid others.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 01:40 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I didn't call you an idiot, I effectively called you a mis-representer of arguments. |
Didn't misrepresented the arguments Mike, I did exactly what you did, I presented an opinion of a an expert in medical science (in my case) and you presented the opinion of a moron like The Amazing Atheist.
|
So I apologise ... you *are* an idiot. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Show me one post where I mentioned TAA and presented him as a figure of authority. LOL, the guy is a comedian - he posts funny rants about this and that on YouTube, and besides that also has serious things to say about many topics, including religion. I simply think that sometimes he makes points that are worth considering - but nobody should take his word for anything - or mine, or anybody else's. |
Mike, I could never guess that you are posting a 5 or 10 minutes video of a guy you believe nobody should take his word for anything...What's the point?
|
It's called "edutainment". You can listen to or watch something, not take their word for it, and still get something from it - maybe entertainment, maybe inspiration for further investigation, or maybe you indeed take their word on some points ... it's entirely up to you. Sorry, but setting up a false dichotomy (something is either completely useless or 100% authoritative) won't work, it's just too easy to see through.
Iván wrote:
But since you say he has serious things to say.....You are considering him an authority, otherwise, you wouldn''t had posted him.
|
Please stop being an idiot ... it gives me a headache.
Iván wrote:
If he has so serious things to say about many issues...Why he calls himself The Amazing Atheist in direct reference to religion, if it isn't because religion is his main and only target?
|
... because that's the user name he chose? Duh.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
When it comes to science, I may take the word of a respected scientist as authoritative - if he/she is talking about things that are in his area of expertise. But in your case it's medical doctors making claims about supernatural events. That is the definition of the argument from authority: They're out of their field, yet you try to use their degrees to make it appear like they're more qualified to identify a miracle than you or me. All they are more qualified to do is to determine "there's no apparent medical cause, based on our knowledge today". |
No Mike, the Medical Doctor can't decide if something is a miracle or not, he has no authority, he only declares:
- There's no medical explanation.
- The person was in a determined place at the time of healing
- The person is completely cured
- After some years pass he reaffirms that the sickness hasn't re-appeared
The Church is the one who decides with the information provided by this doctor and four more, plus a neutral opinion of any respected medical institution with no connection with the Church, if it's a miracle.
|
I was merely quoting the article - and it was you who at some point said something to that effect - *if I recall correctly*. I may be wrong here - but at this point, between breakfast and having to leave for work, I'm too lazy to look it up. BTW: "neutral" - you got to be kidding me. How many of these doctors are Catholics?
Iván wrote:
So at the end: - The Doctor talks about medicine where he is an authority.
- The Church declares if it's a miracle where she is an authority.
Now, IMO The Amazing Atheist is an authority in stupidity and arrogance without any base..
|
I never said that TAA is an authority in anything, so you're barking up the wrong tree here. BTW: Your church is only an authority on religion because you see it that way. Ask any Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or even Protestant whether the Vatican is an authority on anything.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
No. I'm saying that if I don't know how something happens, the least likely explanation is "miracle". The most likely explanation, based on cumulative empirical data, is that we don't yet understand all the (naturalistic) mechanisms that might explain such an event. That is simply much more likely than the supernatural explanation. |
This is a different issue, you don't believe but you don't deny.
Still, saying it's less likely without any evidence of the contrary is not very scientific.
|
Well, not everyone is cut to be a scientist or to be able to grasp what science is about ... I think that's unfortunate, but all I can do is to present it to you. You're either not able to understand (clandestine stab at your intelligence) or you don't want to understand.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I'm perfectly calm. I'm not interested in "proving you wrong", I'm just trying to show that your explanation is much more likely to be wrong than mine is. You said yourself that you *need* faith in order to believe it. It is the religious people (in this case: the Vatican) who have set this up to look like science enters into this - not us atheists. |
Mike, you lost your temper more than once, I now you for years and it's easy to notice, when you are calm, you debate, when you loose your temper, the harsh adjectives start to flow.
|
That's merely some frustration from your close-mindedness combined with the fact that you accuse me (and Dean, and many others) of close-mindedness at the same time. Like I said above, it gives me a headache.
Iván wrote:
Now Mike, my explanation is not more or less likely than your's, both are at the most intelligent guesses, because there's no evidence to support any of them.with absolute certitude.
|
Yours is idiotic, mine is scientific. To me the latter sounds more intelligent. If you talk about science and "absolute certitude" then you don't have a clue what science is.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
And since you still don't get it:
1. Calling somebody "ignorant of something" is not the same as calling someone "an ignorant". 2. "Delusion" has several definitions - one of them is "false belief", and that's how I (and Dawkins, too, by the way) am using it. Calling your belief a "delusion" simply means that I think that it's not true, that it is obvious from the arguments I and other atheists present that it's more likely to be false than to be true, and that you can only continue believing it by ignoring the available evidence. And it so happens that that is just one of the definitions of faith ("belief in the face of contrary evidence"). 3. See the first answer in this post about the "idiot".
|
Tomato - Tomate........Sound different but are the same Mike, sand you know what's your intention, of course with much more class than other guy, but you are trying to provoke a reaction, I was born in the night, but not tonight, I know when somebody is provoking, I deal with provocations every day at court.
Iván
|
And maybe you'll stop thinking like a lawyer trying to defend a lost case and start thinking like a scientist. I won't hold my breath until that happens, but I certainly hope it will. It has, for some religious people.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: December 08 2010 at 07:45 |
Again you loose your temper Mike?
You are the one who quoted this guy and you call me an idiot?
Iván
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
