(March 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)RedFish Wrote: Swiss cheese still stands up, no matter how many holes. Up to a point obviously. I think there's enough to make what I said stand too. I did not claim inherent doctrine, only dogma.
I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them. You think 'neither do I deny' means I adopt them all? Ok, I'll rephrase.
I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them validity to those who believe in them. My 'Welcome' post made this clearer. Sorry.
Missed the point of what discussion? That wasn't a discussion, it was a massacre.
The evidence I presented was of the debate being 'loaded'. It should have more properly been called 'Phone-in Show'.
I'm used to a more structured kind of debate, with a referee, and a formal debating structure to make sure parity is upheld. I'm English. Not going to apologise for that.
Wow. I mean it's one thing to ignore evidence, but it's quite another to wilfully admit your argument has holes in it, then make the assertion that it still stands on its own merits. It gets quite frustrating to keep explaining to people that no, atheism doesn't have a dogma, especially not because you heard some Christian apologetics' site make the ridiculous assumption.
Dogma is doctrine.
dogma [ˈdɒgmə]
n pl -mas, -mata [-mətə]
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a religious doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by ecclesiastical authority as true
2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, or doctrines Marxist dogma
"I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them validity to those who believe in them." - That's completely different from what you originally said.
It's a TV call in show, they have discussions and they can get heated. I don't see the issue. There was only one guy talking at a time, and they made the same point. It's not like they were overwhelming the caller with banter, quite the opposite. Claims have to be challenged one at a time, especially when you don't have unlimited time.
