tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post3188895766857475746..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: IgnotheistsD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9490237337083939432012-07-11T03:51:34.237-04:002012-07-11T03:51:34.237-04:00>> Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan?
You m...>> Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan?<br /><br />You mean the book that says Scripture of the Bible is truth? Parts of it. Let me ask you though, if you lost your keys in the kitchen, found your keys in the kitchen, would you look in the trash for your keys afterwords?<br /><br />>> I believe myself to be my own [g]od. I haven't created any worlds, I have no followers, and my existence is measurable.<br /><br />Congratulations, you worship the same god of <a href="http://bit.ly/AtheistsSatanists" rel="nofollow"> atheists and satanists.</a> The god of self.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-48680122764124497372012-07-11T01:23:51.628-04:002012-07-11T01:23:51.628-04:00You've made a baseless assumption that an Athe...You've made a baseless assumption that an Atheist that has read the Bible (in more depth than most Christians, at that) doubts their beliefs, or that they've sought salvation in your book. Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan? The Nag Hammadi? Liber AL vel Legis? How about something philosophical, So Spoke Zarathustra?<br /><br />Mind you all, I'm not an Atheist, and certainly not a Theist. I am an Agnostic Egotheist. I believe myself to be my own God. I haven't created any worlds, I have no followers, and my existence is measurable. I argue that Theism and Atheism are both baseless assumptions, because the existence or lack thereof of a God is neither verifiable or falsifiable. They are both beliefs. Science does not disprove a God's existence, and a God's existence does not disprove Science. Truth is Truth, Science is never going to be 100% accurate, theories are proven and debunked all the time. You can argue till the cows come home, but I know that there will never be conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of a God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03609904546154968604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-26633774857745661522012-07-11T01:23:33.298-04:002012-07-11T01:23:33.298-04:00You've made a baseless assumption that an Athe...You've made a baseless assumption that an Atheist that has read the Bible (in more depth than most Christians, at that) doubts their beliefs, or that they've sought salvation in your book. Have you read the Qu'ran, Dan? The Nag Hammadi? Liber AL vel Legis? How about something philosophical, So Spoke Zarathustra?<br /><br />Mind you all, I'm not an Atheist, and certainly not a Theist. I am an Agnostic Egotheist. I believe myself to be my own God. I haven't created any worlds, I have no followers, and my existence is measurable. I argue that Theism and Atheism are both baseless assumptions, because the existence or lack thereof of a God is neither verifiable or falsifiable. They are both beliefs. Science does not disprove a God's existence, and a God's existence does not disprove Science. Truth is Truth, Science is never going to be 100% accurate, theories are proven and debunked all the time. You can argue till the cows come home, but I know that there will never be conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of a God.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03609904546154968604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-48941194333680230262008-12-16T19:06:00.000-05:002008-12-16T19:06:00.000-05:00Matt,Looks like I spoke too soon...I thought you w...Matt,<BR/><BR/><I>Looks like I spoke too soon...</I><BR/><BR/>I thought you would enjoy that post, but your comment cracked me up! Good times.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-43469268498959453832008-12-16T11:30:00.000-05:002008-12-16T11:30:00.000-05:00Looks like I spoke too soon...Looks like I spoke too soon...ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78917519816464762142008-12-16T08:12:00.000-05:002008-12-16T08:12:00.000-05:00Dan,Thank you for your eloquent and thought-provok...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your eloquent and thought-provoking response - it really cleared things up for me.<BR/><BR/>Of course, I'm sure that now this whole misunderstanding has been resolved in a mature and amicable way; you'll be off to the local library to do some basic research on the theory of evolution so you can avoid any silly mistakes or misrepresentations of the theory that have so plagued your previous posts.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-16497761811786769822008-12-15T17:14:00.000-05:002008-12-15T17:14:00.000-05:00Matt,Dan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to s...Matt,<BR/><BR/>Dan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?"<BR/><BR/>First one might be ok. The second one might be ok also<BR/><BR/><I>"Should I just take it that you see God as an abusive husband and leave it there?"</I><BR/><BR/>No.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-10140361291417341742008-12-15T15:58:00.000-05:002008-12-15T15:58:00.000-05:00Dan,This is what was said;Dr. Mabuse: "Is "lying f...Dan,<BR/><BR/>This is what was said;<BR/><BR/>Dr. Mabuse: "Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying?"<BR/><BR/>Dan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?"<BR/><BR/>In the first instance a person is lying for Christ, to win a soul to salvation and escape the wrath of God.<BR/><BR/>In the second instance a person is lying for the wife, to secure her safety and escape from the abusive husband.<BR/><BR/>You said the the first one might be ok because the second one certainly was (I agree that it is ok to lie to save a wife suffering from spousal abuse BTW). The inference is clearly that the two situations are analogous to each other. The wife is equivalent to the unbeliever you're trying to save and the husband is God, whose wrath you are trying to save the unbeliever from.<BR/><BR/>I didn't make this comparison, you did. If you'd like to clarify your position on this, I'm all ears.<BR/><BR/><BR/>MattExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-79206331702876636652008-12-15T14:56:00.000-05:002008-12-15T14:56:00.000-05:00ExPatMatt,Are you still following this thread or w...ExPatMatt,<BR/><BR/><I>Are you still following this thread or what? Should I just take it that you see God as an abusive husband and leave it there?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Sure am and I thought you were making an absurd exaggerated comparison as a flip response. Didn't think you were serious. <BR/><BR/>Are you?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-84039463856712296612008-12-15T11:14:00.000-05:002008-12-15T11:14:00.000-05:00AGS,How does this;You - "Life evolving from non-li...AGS,<BR/><BR/>How does this;<BR/><BR/>You - "Life evolving from non-living matter is unscientific?"<BR/><BR/>Follow from this;<BR/><BR/>Me - "Please show me one instance of this occurring and explain why I should care that someone who holds no belief in God/gods is also misinformed about science."<BR/><BR/>I was talking about an instance of an atheist saying that 'evolution did it!!!!!' in reference to the origins of life. I haven't seen anyone making this claim - that's what I was saying. Your question doesn't even make any sense. <BR/><BR/>Though, I'm glad you concede that it doesn't actually matter when an uninformed person makes mistakes about things he doesn't understand, I don't think that makes the person 'irrelevant', do you?<BR/><BR/>"Or you could stop trying to moderate on a blog that isn't yours."<BR/><BR/>Not trying to moderate, just saying that diving into a conversation making random accusations about entire groups of people without any supporting evidence is very troll-like behaviour, and nobody likes a troll.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Dan,<BR/><BR/>Are you still following this thread or what? Should I just take it that you see God as an abusive husband and leave it there?<BR/><BR/>Cool.ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-61009543541957292742008-12-13T01:08:00.000-05:002008-12-13T01:08:00.000-05:00Please show me one instance of this occurring and ...<I>Please show me one instance of this occurring and explain why I should care that someone who holds no belief in God/gods is also misinformed about science.</I><BR/><BR/>Life evolving from non-living matter is unscientific? Please tell. I do agree, however, that any atheists that are scientifically mis-informed are irrelevent.<BR/><BR/><I>Or you could just stop trolling and join in the conversation.</I><BR/><BR/>Or <I>you</I> could stop trying to moderate on a blog that isn't yours.AGShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200925897826166418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-85101444223596576532008-12-12T10:40:00.000-05:002008-12-12T10:40:00.000-05:00AGS,"In fact it's embarrassing how many atheists r...AGS,<BR/><BR/>"In fact it's embarrassing how many atheists reference evolution and when questioned about origin of life will reply that "evolution did it!!!!!"."<BR/><BR/>Please show me one instance of this occurring and explain why I should care that someone who holds no belief in God/gods is also misinformed about science.<BR/><BR/>Or you could just stop trolling and join in the conversation.ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-63106511833558198722008-12-12T09:16:00.000-05:002008-12-12T09:16:00.000-05:00Dan wrote: "Well we have more in common then I tho...<B>Dan</B> wrote: "<I>Well we have more in common then I thought then. False religions and denominations destroys.</I>"<BR/><BR/>To paraphrase someone (I can't recall who said it): "When you understand the reason you're rejecting all other religions, you'll understand why I'm rejecting yours".<BR/><BR/><I>That is harsh. Did I lie then? after all I misrepresented you by calling you an atheist.</I><BR/><BR/>I suppose from your narrow perspective, being agnostic or atheist is the same thing. Context is everything. It's the foundation for how a word (or a paragraph) is to be interpreted. In the case of Morris quoting Ruse, the context is defined by the paragraph <B>Reynold</B> is asking you about.<BR/>In our case, it's your religion and my rejection of it.<BR/><BR/><I>Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband? </I><BR/><BR/>You're avoiding answering the question. You have given me the impression that you believe my morals are different from yours, so making me answering your question doesn't necessarily provide an answer to mine.<BR/>Remember, you're the one who believes that lying is a mortal sin. I just think it's wrong.<BR/><BR/><I>You need to stop relying on Richard Dawkins for information about God. It's in his interest to misrepresent Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>I have never relied on Richard Dawkins for information about God. Whoever told you so was a lying sack of shit. I got my information about God reading the Bible, and spending about 10 years in the Pentecostal Church in Sweden as a born again Christian.<BR/>I haven't read any books by Richard Dawkins, only recently seen short video snippets of him on youtube. Until a few years ago, I had no idea who he was.<BR/><BR/><B></B> <I></I>Dr. Mabusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12800541662933381098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-86323688197076415012008-12-12T04:47:00.000-05:002008-12-12T04:47:00.000-05:00I assume, then, Dan, that you've read every "holy ...<I>I assume, then, Dan, that you've read every "holy book" for every other religion, cover to cover?<BR/><BR/>Have you also kept yourself completely informed on Evolution? The various other sciences which threaten your worldview?</I><BR/><BR/>I think you could ask atheists the same questions and for many the answer would be "no" to the former and "no" to the latter. Yet they would still dishonestly claim to be opining from a position of education. <BR/><BR/>In fact it's embarrassing how many atheists reference evolution and when questioned about origin of life will reply that "evolution did it!!!!!". <BR/><BR/>The fact is that for many of the adolescent-esque "on the bandwagon" new atheist followers of the New Atheists their disbelief is founded on a faith in things about which they know nothing and they gain inner confidence from a supernatural ability to cut and paste.AGShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200925897826166418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-62853851908886746452008-12-11T21:06:00.000-05:002008-12-11T21:06:00.000-05:00Dan,You do realize, aside from avoiding all the ot...Dan,<BR/><BR/>You do realize, aside from avoiding all the other issues raised, that by saying this;<BR/><BR/>Dr. mabuse: "Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying?"<BR/><BR/>Dan: "Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband?"<BR/><BR/>And bearing in mind you are trying to save us from the wrath of God - you're actually comparing God to an abusive husband. And saying that it's ok to lie to us to help us avoid our next (eternal) beating.<BR/><BR/>I find the analogy to be quite apt. <BR/><BR/>This is one of the many reasons why atheists find your God distateful (regardless of what Dawkins might say).<BR/><BR/>Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-56780093446428807922008-12-11T19:03:00.000-05:002008-12-11T19:03:00.000-05:00Dr. Mabuse,Rather than labeling me an anti-theist,...Dr. Mabuse,<BR/><BR/><I>Rather than labeling me an anti-theist, you could say anti-religionist</I><BR/><BR/>Well we have more in common then I thought then. False religions and denominations destroys. <BR/><BR/><I>Which means that Morris did indeed misrepresent Ruse (which equal lying).</I><BR/><BR/>That is harsh. Did I lie then? after all I misrepresented you by calling you an atheist.<BR/><BR/><I>Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying?</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe. Is it a valid reason to lie to save a woman from an abusive husband? <BR/><BR/><I>You need to stop relying on Answers in Genesis, and Institute for Creational Research for information about Evolution. It's in their interest to misrepresent evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>You need to stop relying on Richard Dawkins for information about God. It's in his interest to misrepresent Christianity.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-41395974240486961162008-12-11T15:02:00.000-05:002008-12-11T15:02:00.000-05:00Dan wrote: "I fully concede to the claim that Dr. ...<B>Dan</B> wrote: "<I>I fully concede to the claim that Dr. Mabuse and Reynold are not the same person, that they just are similar in thoughts and writing styles.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/><I>They are brothers in antitheism, oops sorry atheism. :-)</I><BR/><BR/>I thought I told you I was an agnostic. But easy to generalise, so I forgive you. But I do have an issue with organised religion. Rather than labeling me an anti-theist, you could say anti-religionist. <BR/><BR/><B>[You] never got around to acknowledge that Morris was a dishonest prick for doing so.</B><BR/><I>I cannot judge a man's motives, since I am not clairvoyant. Are you claiming some extra perception to know otherwise?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Clairvoyance is not necessary. Morris quoted Ruse, giving Ruse himself as reference. This means that Morris must have read Michael Ruse's article, or he would be lying.<BR/>Let's assume that Morris wasn't outright lying about where he got the quote. This means that Morris must have known the context from which the quote was taken. <BR/>Reynold has evidence both from the article itself, and from correspondance with Ruse, that the quote was completely out of context. Which means that Morris did indeed misrepresent Ruse (which equal lying). I don't need to know Morris' inner thoughts or motives to judge his actions: he acted like a dishonest prick, so I called him that.<BR/>Morris could be lying his ass off to further the glory of Christ by making Ruse appear to indirectly support theism by attacking atheism.<BR/><BR/>The question then follows: Is "lying for Christ" a valid reason for lying? What do you think, <B>Dan</B>?<BR/><BR/>When you're quoting a statement as loaded as Michael Ruse's, it's your bloody duty to make sure you don't screw up. <BR/>It's your duty to Michael Ruse.<BR/>It's your duty to us (if you're honest about wanting to save us: truth shall set us free, lying to us could damn us to hell, and all that...).<BR/>And I thought it was your duty to <B>yourself</B> as a Truthseeker.<BR/><BR/>Finally:<BR/><B>Dan</B>, if you want to know the inner workings of a ferry, do you go to the ferry manufacturer/shipyard asking, or do you go to a bridge-building contractor?<BR/><BR/>You need to stop relying on Answers in Genesis, and Institute for Creational Research for information about Evolution. It's in their interest to misrepresent evolution.Dr. Mabusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12800541662933381098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-50041706107066499672008-12-11T11:08:00.000-05:002008-12-11T11:08:00.000-05:00Dan,I'm not trying to place myself in a 'teacher' ...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to place myself in a 'teacher' role, and I don't get the feeling that your too keen on being a student either (at least not a student of a heathen like me).<BR/><BR/>All the information you could ever want is at your fingertips; you only need to look in the right places with an open mind. I've done it - and continue to do it - with the Bible, which is why I enjoy discussing it and feel like I am able to be reasonable about it. <BR/><BR/>All I'm saying is that if you wish to have an intelligent discussion regarding evolution, you should do the required leg-work first. If you choose not to, then don't be surprised when people start calling you on your mistakes and misunderstandings.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-74548886822287480552008-12-11T02:30:00.000-05:002008-12-11T02:30:00.000-05:00ExPatMatt,OK teacher, what does evolution proposes...ExPatMatt,<BR/><BR/>OK teacher, what does evolution proposes?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42017523701639701262008-12-10T17:45:00.000-05:002008-12-10T17:45:00.000-05:00"There is just no proof for evolution turning one ..."There is just no proof for evolution turning one *family* into another."<BR/><BR/>Is this what you are saying?<BR/><BR/>"Yes."<BR/><BR/>Well that's good then, because that isn't what evolution proposes. I guess we can all go home now.ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-23643265765924679882008-12-10T17:42:00.000-05:002008-12-10T17:42:00.000-05:00"There is just no proof for evolution turning one ...<B>"There is just no proof for evolution turning one *family* into another."</B><BR/><BR/><I>Is this what you are saying?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-38755873695150897962008-12-10T17:38:00.000-05:002008-12-10T17:38:00.000-05:00Dan,I'm sure you'll find a way to disregard this, ...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you'll find a way to disregard this, but according to National Geographic:<BR/><BR/>"Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine...<BR/><BR/>"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure." <BR/><BR/>It's a brand new structure. Ok, not a brand new organ as I previously said, but a brand new structure. Still - where did the information come from for the lizard to develop this 'brand new structure'?<BR/><BR/><BR/>You said;<BR/><BR/>"For kicks I looked up 'species' and found one definition as: A group of plants or animals having similar appearance."<BR/><BR/>Interesting, I know how much fun you have with definitions, but the very next definition on 'Wiktionary' was for use in Biology/Taxonomy (probably the one we're talking about here, no?): <BR/><BR/>"A rank in the classification of organisms, below genus and above subspecies; a taxon at that rank"<BR/><BR/>Sort of makes your next statement...<BR/><BR/>"So if Poodles and Great Danes are indeed different species then I would mean Families or 'Kind'."<BR/><BR/>... kind of irrelevant, eh?<BR/><BR/>Either way, you now seem to be re-phrasing your statement to say that:<BR/><BR/>"There is just no proof for evolution turning one *family* into another."<BR/><BR/>Is this what you are saying?ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-15830402765484277672008-12-10T17:22:00.000-05:002008-12-10T17:22:00.000-05:00ExPatMatt,Brand new organ?That is a stretch. Manip...ExPatMatt,<BR/><BR/>Brand new organ?<BR/><BR/>That is a stretch. Manipulation or adjustment of a current organ would be a better description. Like the bones in space, example.<BR/><BR/><I>Unless you have a very different definition of what constitutes a 'species' of course - maybe you'd like to amend that to 'kind'?</I><BR/> <BR/>For kicks I looked up 'species' and found one definition as: A group of plants or animals having similar appearance.<BR/><BR/>So if Poodles and Great Danes are indeed different species then I would mean Families or "Kind."<BR/><BR/>Are Zebras and Donkeys part of the same species (horses)? My definition would say yes. So would it be more clear to you if I described them as 'families'?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36419332057954012062008-12-10T11:25:00.000-05:002008-12-10T11:25:00.000-05:00Dan,Thanks for responding, I know it can get diffi...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding, I know it can get difficult to keep track of multiple threads (especially when one is running over 500 comments!)<BR/><BR/>I don't think anyone is expecting you to be an expert on, well, anything. And neither are we; we're all amateurs here and, I hope, we all approach the discussion as equals; some with something to teach, all with something to learn. That's how I see it anyway.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to mostly leave these questions as they are because I think the conversation probably needs a re-boot via a new post, but I will pick up on a couple of things that caught my eye.<BR/><BR/>You said;<BR/><BR/>"Croatian lizards is a fine example and we can agree that they adapted to their environment, just as the finches"<BR/><BR/>Can you not see how this is an example of moving the goal posts?<BR/><BR/>You say that that mutations never 'add information' and never result in any novel features, just minor adaptations (like beak length) or loss of information (like bone mass in space). Then we present you with a species that, over a period of 30 odd years, has evolved a brand new organ that no other species in it's family has and you hand-wave it away as just 'adapting to it's environment'.<BR/><BR/>This is frustrating because, limited as your knowledge may be, you know full well that evolutionary theory predicts small changes over many generations. <BR/><BR/>Here we see a very significant change - a complex and fully-formed, new organ - happen in the span of a few decades and with no good reason the Creationist dismisses it as 'adaptation'.<BR/><BR/>It is especially galling that you say;<BR/><BR/>"There is just no proof for evolution turning one species into another."<BR/><BR/>When there are countless examples of observed speciation all over the natural world. Unless you have a very different definition of what constitutes a 'species' of course - maybe you'd like to amend that to 'kind'?<BR/><BR/>It's just annoying that you start off by admitting you don't know much about evolution and then slowly progress to dictating exactly what it is that scientists should be able to show to provide proof!<BR/><BR/>It'd be like me saying; "I've never read the Bible, but if you want to show me it's true then you have to show me how unicorns can be ground to a fine powder that turn lead into gold."<BR/><BR/><BR/>So if you're going to rip into atheists and their worldview, feel free. But if you're going to make a serious attempt at 'debunking' the theory of evolution, please learn what it is first; otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself and annoying everyone else. Ok?<BR/><BR/>Cheers,ExPatMatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08666078524214384329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-27959328112622148842008-12-09T20:22:00.000-05:002008-12-09T20:22:00.000-05:00Dan wrote For argument purposes lets just say very...Dan wrote <I>For argument purposes lets just say very little and I need more study about it.</I><BR/><BR/>Lots of stuff going through my head. First and foremost: you've said nothing surprising. Your critics knew you were talking out your arse when you claimed to understand the basics<BR/><BR/>Second - for someone who claims to be debunking atheists, and alternately cursing their names or praying for their souls, you've hurt your own credibility. I'll be completely honest: the only way I'm truly suprised by your admission is that you fail to see just how this makes you look. it's not good, Dan.<BR/><BR/>Finally - I'm not claiming this is the first time you've done so, but Good Job on being honest with your critics.<BR/><BR/>Let's see where we go from here...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.com