3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI got myself a kindle with the earnest intention to read some classic (and of course free) fiction like "The Count Of Monte Christo", "War and Peace" (crikey that's a long one) - have only got [edit* 4]% the way through the latter, haven't touched the former and instead find myself trying to work through all the technical pdfs (and a few text books) I've loaded onto it.
Hmmm, more of a Pratchett fan myself.
Also recommend Ian M. Banks as a good read.
One of these days I will get round to seriously reading some fiction!
Originally posted by RJHindsI reckon you should insert "imo" (in my opinion), into much more of your posts.In fact, i cant seem to recall one.
Read the Holy Bible for your answers.
I do it al the time, because, just because something is a truism/true for me, I dont expect others to share my views all the time, whereas it seems you do.
So do you think you could consider my request? I think it would lend much more credibility to your posts in general.
Just an observation, take it as you please.
Originally posted by karoly aczelI just recently learned what the abbreviation IMO meant. This is the first site I
I reckon you should insert "imo" (in my opinion), into much more of your posts.In fact, i cant seem to recall one.
I do it al the time, because, just because something is a truism/true for me, I dont expect others to share my views all the time, whereas it seems you do.
So do you think you could consider my request? I think it would lend much more credibility to your posts in general.
Just an observation, take it as you please.
have ever posted on and I am not up on the abbreviations. However, I have
spelled out "in my opinion" in some of my posts. I don't do it often for unless
I quote someone else I am giving my opinion, which is the purpose of this site
I believe. I believe most people understand this.
Originally posted by AgergWHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE by Jerry A. Coyne should be a good fiction read for
I got myself a kindle with the earnest intention to read some classic (and of course free) fiction like "The Count Of Monte Christo", "War and Peace" (crikey that's a long one) - have only got [edit* 4]% the way through the latter, haven't touched the former and instead find myself trying to work through all the technical pdfs (and a few text books) I've loaded onto it.
One of these days I will get round to seriously reading some fiction!
you. I have only read the Introduction but Proper Knob highly recommends it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillOne thing I would say is that they talk about 'new atheists'.... there is no such thing.
William Lane's Craig's Post Debate Thoughts on His Encounter with Sam Harris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCQn5WHGtVc&feature=related
Modern atheists are just the same as old atheists with more up-to-date science.
Originally posted by googlefudgeFor your information 'new atheists' are those atheist that have new ideas
One thing I would say is that they talk about 'new atheists'.... there is no such thing.
Modern atheists are just the same as old atheists with more up-to-date science.
as to how to distort the truth.
Originally posted by RJHindsI just think that when you mention something from the bible it is your opinion, as strong as it may be, and not the "truth" as you usually claim it to be.
I just recently learned what the abbreviation IMO meant. This is the first site I
have ever posted on and I am not up on the abbreviations. However, I have
spelled out "in my opinion" in some of my posts. I don't do it often for unless
I quote someone else I am giving my opinion, which is the purpose of this site
I believe. I believe most people understand this.
Originally posted by karoly aczelNot if I quote the Holy Bible for the Holy Bible is "the word of truth".
I just think that when you mention something from the bible it is your opinion, as strong as it may be, and not the "truth" as you usually claim it to be.
That is no opinion. Everything else is my opinion but it also could be
fact.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat "up-to-date science" would you refer to to reply to this critique of Daniel Dennett by William Lane Craig on the Cosmological Argument ?
One thing I would say is that they talk about 'new atheists'.... there is no such thing.
Modern atheists are just the same as old atheists with more up-to-date science.
&feature=related
Originally posted by RJHindsNo. It is still your opinion, because you take on the info from the bible, formulate an opinion based on it, and then present it as your view. You call it "truth" but really it is just an opinion-as strong or weak as it may be.
Not if I quote the Holy Bible for the Holy Bible is "the word of truth".
That is no opinion. Everything else is my opinion but it also could be
fact.
Originally posted by RJHindsIf I told you that 'so and so' book was the word of truth then would you call that the truth?
Not if I quote the Holy Bible for the Holy Bible is "the word of truth".
That is no opinion. Everything else is my opinion but it also could be
fact.
There is no truth as spoken in words.
I could drop a rock on my foot and it would be true, but as soon as I put that into words, it becomes an opinion.
Originally posted by karoly aczelSo you only speak opinions then. Okay. Good enough.
If I told you that 'so and so' book was the word of truth then would you call that the truth?
There is no truth as spoken in words.
I could drop a rock on my foot and it would be true, but as soon as I put that into words, it becomes an opinion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillI would listen to what Daniel Dennett actually said and not what WLC distorted it into.
What "up-to-date science" would you refer to to reply to this critique of Daniel Dennett by William Lane Craig on the Cosmological Argument ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEvcSlLOwmg&feature=related
Incidentally the debate you linked between Sam Harris and WLC, I have watched (almost)
all of it and contrary to what you may believe Sam Harris is kicking WLC's ass all over the
podium.
I assume that is not how you see it.
My point about up to date science was simply that atheists back in the past had less up to
date science than the ones around today.
The actual arguments for being an atheist and not a theist are all old, theists haven't come up
with any new arguments for believing in god/s in centuries, so all the basic counter arguments
that atheists use were invented typically centuries ago.
The only exception to this is 'god of the gaps' arguments where increased scientific knowledge
has reduced the size and scope of the gaps. This is particularly true for creationists.
The so called 'new atheists' are simply today's most prominent atheists, apart from updated
science they don't say anything that atheists couldn't or didn't say hundreds of years before.
And it's a testament to how backwards religions are that we still have to have arguments over
and over the atheists won centuries ago.
If you accept logic and reason and evidence then you can't support religion.
It's sad (tragic) the number of people who do abandon logic and science so they can believe in
god/s.