Arc-anus Wrote:No, it directly addressed what you hear "most Christians" arguing every day, which is certainly a straw man because it absolutely is different from what I argue: "Where did I ever suggest anecdotal evidence is scientific? Nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that one's anecdotal evidence should be persuasive for someone else? Again, nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that science does, or even should, rely on anecdotes as evidence of anything? Once again, nowhere." If you want to address what "most Christians" say to you (or within earshot of you) and ignore what I actually said, go ahead. But don't pretend it has any relevance to me.
So what? The fact that most Christians do, in fact make such arguments every day makes it germaine to the discussion, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to such nafarious arguments. Do you really think this is all about you? If you want something done about your Christian friends making such arguments, I suggest you discuss it with them.
orogenicman Wrote:You really ought to learn to control your temper, dude.
Arc-anus Wrote:What temper? The swearing? Good grief, what sort of anal retentive upbringing did you have that swearing is an indication of anger? In the great big world beyond your uptight notions, some people swear for emphasis, or out of frustration, etc., without any temper or anger at all. Seriously. Get out of the basement sometime and see.
Erm, that temper.
![Angel Cloud Angel Cloud](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/angel-cloud.gif)
orogenicman Wrote:So you were saying that the idea of testing for the existence of God is a non-starter? Odd. It appeared to me that you were arguing just the opposite.
Arc-anus Wrote:Glad it finally sank in for you.
orogenicman Wrote:But hey, if you don't believe that one can devise a test to verify the existence of God, then our arguments aren't so far apart after all.
Quote:Oh please, dude, our arguments could not possibly get any further apart. Mine are rational, for starters.
So, you will be providing us with comic relief. I'm impressed.
orogenicman Wrote:No, sir. I submit to you that you dismiss what I post because you can't post a level headed rebuttal.
Arc-anus Wrote:Your delusional submission is noted.
Thanks for proving my point.
![Cool Shades Cool Shades](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/cool-shades.gif)
orogenicman Wrote:I suspect that my grasp of the Christian religion is at least as good as anyone else's ...
Arc-anus Wrote:Yeah? Give us some reason to think that's true by answering your bolded question.
Nice re-direct attempt. Try answering the question yourself instead.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero