[Oni]

Christianity is a monotheistic religion. If you're identifying yourself as a Christian (even sort-of), you're technically identifying as a theist.


If you identify as a Christian and are saying that, you're contradicting yourself quite drastically. The Bible has many scientifically disproven verses.


I'm focused on being right because this is a debate, isn't that what both of us are trying to do? Also, many branches of science have been proven. Regardless of that, lack of mathematical proof does not mean something isn't true.

When it comes to rolling the dice on religion, I've picked the most popular/historical/widespread, and I don't support it blindly. There are plenty of things in the bible (and scriptures from other religions) that are true and untrue. It'd be ridiculous to take everything literally, though. A large portion, I discredit. Some might argue I'm not really Christian.

I acknowledge all possibilities, from the idea of there being a singular god, to the idea of the Big Bang. I'm hesitant to say I'm a theist (or even Christian) exactly, because I acknowledge all possibilities. A theist is someone who would argue with you, claiming their faith trumps your science. I'm saying that it's foolish to compare or debate the two.

Remember, your beliefs haven't been proven entirely. I'd almost argue it takes a degree of faith (albeit, in hypotheses) to be atheist, for this reason. Science differs from faith on the basis of actual hard evidence. However, it's pointless to have a debate on which is superior when neither has been successfully proven or disproven.

Keep in mind, there are other forums full of this argument out there, and there's never an actual winner.

[Jiggly]

Give an example and I'll do my best to explain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...ific-proof

I think this article highlights what I was trying to get at to some extent.

The use of the word proof comes into play a lot.


Also, are you against scientific theories?

[Oni]

Give an example and I'll do my best to explain.

Ever heard of Plato's Cave?

[pvnk]

AGNOSTIC IS NOT A FORM OF BELIEF OR NON-BELIEF. IT IS NOT A STANCE OR LACK OF A STANCE. ALSO, ATHEISM IS NOT DISBELIEF, RATHER, THE LACK OF BELIEF.

FOR FUCK SAKES!

YOU ARE NOT SIMPLY AGNOSTIC, BUT AN AGNOSTIC ATHESIT. YOU CAN ALSO BE A GNOSTIC ATHEIST. EITHER WAY, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SO PLEASE DO NOT PRETEND TO SOUND MORE INTELLECTUAL BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW TO MIS-USE A WORD.

DIE!!

[m0dem]

Ad homenim because you obviously don't know how to respond to what I said. Is this your first time being wrong?

---

No scientist has ever claimed that something came from nothing, not in your sense of "nothing" at least. The beginning of the universe was singularity (before the Big Bang). Also, no scientist has ever claimed to know how time began, and nobody does know. Case closed.

I know the answer: time was created.
This is how you think:

Code:

def where_did_matter_come_from(): return where_did_matter_come_from() def how_did_evolution_begin(): where_did_matter_come_from()

I actually don't. I believe scientists in the sense that I believe they're telling truths (which are backed by logical reasoning and evidence), I don't have "faith" in them. Faith is belief without logical reason. If a scientist were to say the Earth is ending in 5 seconds without logical reasoning and evidence to back up his claim, obviously, I would not believe him.

Apparently you disagree with Merriam-Webster?

faith - strong belief or trust in someone or something

trust - belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.

So you've seen God, have been to heaven, etc? I'm positive you haven't. To not believe (again, in the sense of trust that it's the truth) something only because you didn't experience it is like saying I believe all historical texts and documents are false because I wasn't alive back then.

You've totally missed what I said:

(I'm not saying that is wrong.)

Quote me where I said I thought there was no Bible before Christ came to Earth.

Right here:

I can't believe you actually just said that the Bible said Earth was round before scientists, holy shit! It appears you've actually never looked at the Bible and testaments or learned about a man named Pythagoras. The first known person to claim that the Earth was round was Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher, mathematician, lived 600 years before your "Christ", and wasn't Christian obviously.

Either way, it doesn't refute the fact that he was the first known man to propose that the Earth is round.

Maybe so, the first man. Maybe not.

Anything else?

You have too much self-confidence.

[pvnk]

I know the answer: time was created.
This is how you think:

Code:

def where_did_matter_come_from(): return where_did_matter_come_from() def how_did_evolution_begin(): where_did_matter_come_from()

Apparently you disagree with Merriam-Webster?


You've totally missed what I said:



Right here:


Maybe so, the first man. Maybe not.


You have too much self-confidence.

I just wanted to let you know that your implication that a definition that might disagree with the context of how a web dictionary (or any dictionary) defines a word somehow invalidates an argument, you're delusional.

--

Also, Ad Hominen is not a fallacy of reasoning and logic if it's not the reason behind the argument. Simply because you feel as if you are insulted by another party, but the other party still has valid points, there is no fallacy. However, I agree that it is very cool that you attended high school English and remembered some parts of the list of fallacies your teacher passed out to you.

You have too much self-confidence.

That's Ad Hominen as you are seemingly concluding your argument with an attribute of the other individual.

---

Agnostic for me. I'm open to the concept of religion and gods, but I don't believe in any as I'm a person who likes solid proof, and I don't exactly have any proof apart from "Well it's in this book which we consider holy" or whatever. Pretty much, I'm not faithful to any god, but I don't disbelieve in the possibility of a god.

Refer to my post.

[BurritoBeans]

AGNOSTIC IS NOT A FORM OF BELIEF OR NON-BELIEF. IT IS NOT A STANCE OR LACK OF A STANCE. ALSO, ATHEISM IS NOT DISBELIEF, RATHER, THE LACK OF BELIEF.

FOR FUCK SAKES!

YOU ARE NOT SIMPLY AGNOSTIC, BUT AN AGNOSTIC ATHESIT. YOU CAN ALSO BE A GNOSTIC ATHEIST. EITHER WAY, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SO PLEASE DO NOT PRETEND TO SOUND MORE INTELLECTUAL BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW TO MIS-USE A WORD.

DIE!!

Nice capslock you've got there...

[pvnk]

Nice capslock you've got there...

My caps lock key broke.

[meow]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...ific-proof

I think this article highlights what I was trying to get at to some extent.

The use of the word proof comes into play a lot.


Also, are you against scientific theories?

I agree with Satoshi that there's no such thing as scientific proof, considering like I said, proof is a mathematical term. However, that does not refute the fact that there are certain branches of science which have been mathematically proven, particle physics is a great example. Yes, the scientific evidence/observation of a neutrino particle having less mass than a parent lepton after the said lepton decays is an observation, but the fact that the neutrino has less mass than the said lepton can and has been mathematically proven.

To disagree with the blog post you linked would make me an idiot, really. As previously mentioned by myself, science is inferences based on observations of nature and our universe. Not proofs.

Also, I'm aware I said "scientifically disproven" somewhere within my previous posts. Replace "scientifically" with "mathematically".

To answer your question, no, I'm not against scientific theories. That would go against just about everything I've said in this thread and would mean I'm against science itself.

[m0dem]

I just wanted to let you know that your implication that a definition that might disagree with the context of how a web dictionary (or any dictionary) defines a word somehow invalidates an argument, you're delusional.

--

Also, Ad Hominen is not a fallacy of reasoning and logic if it's not the reason behind the argument. Simply because you feel as if you are insulted by another party, but the other party still has valid points, there is no fallacy. However, I agree that it is very cool that you attended high school English and remembered some parts of the list of fallacies your teacher passed out to you.


That's Ad Hominen as you are seemingly concluding your argument with an attribute of the other individual.

---

Refer to my post.

What about:

Anything else?

Is that not Ad Hominen?
That statement has nothing to do with the argument, it is just to make people believe he has superior knowledge. It also implies that what I am saying is stupid.