Originally posted by NemeBro
You people? Throwing out racial slurs now?I am perfectly well-aware what they mean, and no, I meant behavior illogically.
I couldn't patronize you without your help on the matter.
That you're upset is abundantly obvious, and tremendously satisfying.
Ah, of course you meant that. Mmm.
Actually, you could and are. You have absolutely no other reason to and cannot identify where I've been "unintelligent." Hint: You can't because I haven't been.
Upset? Wrong again. You haven't spoken much with me and have already been wrong on several accounts. Am I supposed to be impressed?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nothing much, lying in bed, naked. What are you wearing?
Zebra striped panties.
That's it.
Originally posted by The Renegade
Ah, of course you meant that. Mmm.
Indeed I did.
Actually, you could and are. You have absolutely no other reason to and cannot identify where I've been "unintelligent." Hint: You can't because I haven't been.
Just now for example.
Upset? Wrong again. You haven't spoken much with me and have already been wrong on several accounts. Am I supposed to be impressed?
No, it is plain as day that you are, in fact, mad and should probably, in fact, calm down.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Indeed I did.Just now for example.
No, it is plain as day that you are, in fact, mad and should probably, in fact, calm down.
What you're selling, I'm not buying.
Oh, how clever. I was unintelligent because I disagreed with you. You're not different than Dramatic Gecko. You've come in and have added nothing, nor can you back up your claims.
No, it's not. It's really unfortunate that you think I'm not calm. I suppose you'll next try to tell me that's not an assumption either.
Originally posted by Digi
Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?
Reasonably so.
It is relatively new compared to other philosophical concepts.
It has its objectors, too, and I'm not sure you're aware of that fact:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist.[2] Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it — each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."[2]
The literary critic James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing".[9]
One counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[10] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[11]
Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[12] He says that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity, but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist." [12]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
if I did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?
Originally posted by Digi
On that specific line of thought, yes, I would.
Okay.
Originally posted by Digi
Utter lack of evidence ...
A. What kind of God are you seeking evidence for?
B. What form of evidence would be distinctive enough for you to acknowledge it AS evidence of or for God and not simply explain it away as something else?
Serious question.
Originally posted by Digi
Do you believe that unicorns exist?
I'm sure there was some animal that inspired our modern view of the beast.
If the people of times past could call the hippopotamus a horse, I can certainly see where liberty of naming could produce a "unicorn" based on, say, an antelope, or some similarly swift mono-horned plain animal.
Aren't decidedly "unpeople" looking creatures like dugongs and manatees supposed to be the source of mermaid tales?
Heck, if a hippopotamus justifies the name "river horse" from the Greeks, I could see something as unlikely as a rhinoceros being what we're talking about.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
the scientific method can be used to educate us about the world of 2000 years ago, or even the world of 200 years ago ...?
Originally posted by Digi
I could provide some resources to begin your reading.
Please do so.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I don't see where science has such a great application for determining ancient historical events with any true authority.
Originally posted by Digi
And the Bible does?
I haven't made exhaustive searches by any means, but, from my understanding, nearly every time the Bible has said,
"Such and such settlement was found here and X happened with them", archaeology has uncovered evidence of the settlements in question.
Where its alluded to battles, corroborating records in other ancient texts have later been found to confirm.
I know of no case where Bible historicity has proven false yet, where the Bible said "X happened" when "X" never did.