Asinine Theist Argument Science Changes

...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Argument
• Science
• asinine
• theist
• theism
• god
• bible
• jesus
• creationism
• evolution
• atheist
• atheism
• TheAtheistPaladin

[KevZen2000]

If science did not change, then it would not be as valuable, as it is today. Empirical evidence, changes all the time, due to experimental results, and without change science, is just a religion, where it does not change, and its absolute, and cannot be questioned. There is no supreme authority in science, so we are left to find out more as we progress, unlike theology, where we preconceive a supreme authority falsely, and the results remain stagnant.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

Understand the definition. Either to "know" something is to facts or information regarding that thing (e.g. proof) or it is to "experience" that thing. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. Here, however, I wouldn't force you to accept that definition, I would simply agree to disagree and go on with understanding your position better if that was possible or end the conversation if it was not.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

Now I can do it to you. Oxford.

1facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject:

2 awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation:

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

"Knowledge in some form or another has to preceed belief. "

Than cannot be true, because if it was, then no false belief system would form. Therefore, you arguing agaisnt me, saying I am wrong, refutes yourself. Beliefs can develop independently of one's knowledge of the subject.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

I can't take you seriously. I proffered a definition several times and asked specifically what is mutually exclusive about it? You offered no direct argument. I gave several reasons why that it is within the bounds of each concept. But every time rather dealing with actual points you drop and ignore, you go on to continue to talk about the definition it self. Even if you feel how I use "agnostic atheist" is wrong, you can still deal with the position I give for it.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

*rolls eyes*

For the love of god, how much of a dishonest sack of shit you got to be? YOU defined atheism, I was only matching the same thing YOU where doing. Even still, the definition I gave is not incompatible with agnosticism. A belief in a god is not something you can do by passive means. It is an active process, however, not believing is. If an agnostic doesn't declare belief for a god, then they are a non-believer.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

I already pointed to another dictionary that agrees with me! What part o f "We can play the dictionary game all day." To not understand that is to be impossibly stupid, which only leaves you as dishonest. What make you arrogant is that you ignore that and assume that only dictionaries refer to yours, and declare victory before any counters are offered. And you declare that Oxford is unbiased? Really? Now you don't know the history of Oxford.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@johhnycarlos

"It is self defining."

HYPOCRISY! You can do it for your group, but I have to abide by the "dictionary". That EXACTLY the point I was making. Really it is game over for you. I am done with you.

[johhnycarlos]

@TheAtheistPaladin What? Seriously? How does refering to an objective unbiased source in the Oxford English Dictionary constitue me trying to paint you into a corner. You already did that yourself. You have painted yourself into an undefinable logically void corner that undermines the authority of the english language.

[johhnycarlos]

@TheAtheistPaladin Knowledge in some form or another has to preceed belief. Knowledge doesnt mean proof or evidence, but basic recognition. Can I believe in God if I have absolutley zero knowledge of even the basic concept of God. No...Belief is a mix of knowledge and faith.