Search results

I believe I've already provided an example of a non-literal interpretation. I don't think either religions make sense, both stories are woven in such a way that, neither be disproved, and shown to make "pseudo-sense." But i for one think that jumping towards a conclusion in the absence of...

The point is, if was clever enough i could weave it around so much that you could not disprove it. People in the medieval ages believed the bible literally, just because the ancient Greeks did too, does not disprove the Olympic Gods especially when looked at with a modern-non-literal perspective.

2 is in Genesis (i think), 3 is in the old testament, Deuteronomy. I was merely pointing out that the Bible, just like worshiping the Olympic Gods is far fetched when interpreting them both literally. Let the issues, be the issues please.

Rubbish, if the literal interpretation of the bible were kept than; The earth would be 6000 years. Unicorns would be real creatures. If i raped a Girl, i could pay 30-50 pieces of silver (depending which passage you chose) to the father and marry her.These are only off the top of my head...

Hey, I'm using the same logic as you are and highlighting why it is flawed, sorry you didn't see that.

Yeh but you see i don't support the literal interpretation. :P

/facepalm Do you even know what an appeal to majority is? Do you realize his numbers dont mean anything? Do you realize he implies his supporting sightings are confirmed? Which he really can't.

Where has Zeus been disproved? Fall in member numbers of the Ancient Greek religion does not disprove Zeus. Your not refuting the point though, why are their testimonies less valuable than christian ones. I'm pretty sure, any Muslim will tell me their religion is inclusive as well. Your...

This is a fallacious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

But you would think us silly if we really did?

There are 1000's of sightings of allah/zeus/"insert random gods here" Clearly an appeal to majority is not a good proof/argument.

maybe you should learn what ad hominem. actaully is? He is right, you do not know what a theory is.

You have shown ignorance yet again.

Whats, north of the north pole? And he admitted he did'nt use t=0 for his argument. I actually think the concept that there was no time at all more difficult to grasp but this is irrelevant.

HYPOCRISY IS THIS<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Big When you are biased towards one side God will seem probable. And im in opinion that the Athiests have refuted his...

Cause then they are not miracles.

Ive read this thread before, this makes my Job so much easier, maybe you should read some of the rebuttals others have made. ive also refuted the causation in one of my other posts.

Why does everything that begins have a cause? Why are naturalistic explanations insufficient?

umm m-theory deals with particles at the fundamental levels...

I rest my case, you are naive. Funny how you doubt Global warming (not necessarily saying its true)due to lack of evidence. Yet on the topic of God, you accept some randoms testimony+Argumentum ad populoum and conclude there is a God.