Why are so many scientists dems and not republican

You not only display this, but you even go so far as to claim that you "know" that there is no God....

Well, now you're just engaging in flat-out lying and I respectfull ask you not to do that. But if that's the only way you feel that you can rebut my argument then that's your straetgy, I guess.

But, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself: show me where I have said that. I have said, many times, that there is no way to know if there is a god or not. I have also said that the god as made up by the Christians is more than likely not anywhere close to the real supreme being.

Aren't scientific theories generated by men?

I see where you're going there, and it confirms my assumption.


The difference is that I choose not to insult people....

Maybe not, but you do choose to lie about what they say. Myself, I put the sin of lying above that of being insulting.
 
For a guy that likes to wrap himself in empiricism and logic, you sure engage in a lot of stereo-typing and wild-*** guessing.

Actually, my guesses are very good.

And, if the other thread (BO being a viable choice) is any indication, my guesses are better than your assertions based on "fact".
 
If there is no way to know if God even exists, then how could it be more likely that the Christian idea of God is somehow wrong or less likely than another idea?

I didn't say that Xtianity was less likely than any other religion. That seems to be what you're saying here, and I want to be clear that that is not what I said. I said that the Xtian depiction of the supreme being is likely not close to the real supreme being. That is far and away a different thing than to say that Xtianity's version is less likely than another's - which necessarily implies that one of the other religions is "more likely". And if I am saying that another religion is more likely than Xtianity, then I would be claiming to have knowledge that no man has. So, let's get that cleared up now.

But your entire rebuttal is basically a leading question, and one that I didn't make (this seems to be happening a lot here today: people making up stuff and attributing it to me). My position was not phrased in such a way that one could ask me if religion x (or, as you call it, an "idea") is "more likely" than another. That makes this a relative comparison between religions, or ideas, and my statment was not a relative one. Do you understand this distinction?

What I said was that the Xtian version of the supreme being (and all other religions, as far as that goes) is not anywhere close to the real version. I said nothing about Xtianity being more likely, or less likely, than another religion or "idea".

Most religions are equally in error, and equally valid.


*************

edit to add:

Also, I said "more than likely"; not "more likely".

There is a difference.
 
I understand your distinction but clearly you do not understand my point that since we cannot prove God either exists or doesn't exist there is no way to make any supported claim about the Christian belief.

Wrong. One certainly can make a "supported claim" about the Xtian belief. Being a man-made story, as are all other religions, there is very little chance the real god is a vengeful dude who wiped out most of the earth's population with a flood, or who impregnated a virgin with his son (who is also himself), who then sacrificed his son (who is also himself) to save man from himself. I mean, you can believe that story if you want and that's fine, no harm no foul, but to think that the real god is like that? Don't be so literal.

The Xtian version of god is one of many. What makes you think that any version of god is accurate?
 
Well if you reach the age of 13 and still believe in the Garden of Eden and the Great Flood you aren't going to be a scientist.
 
Keep fliipping the red herrings back and forth between yourselves.

As evidenced by the Dem's recent loss of the house, their tenuous grasp of the Senate, and the strange chance that the sitting incumbent Dem President could actually lose the election, I think you two should move on to issues that the voters actually care about.
 
DFWag,

Let's get your perspective. Has the GOP lost touch with it's core values? Has it become so radicalized that Republicans past (Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon, et al.) wouldn't recognize it?

If it has moved to the extreme right and repudiated moderation & compromize is it in the long-term risking loss of relevance?

texasflag.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top