Atheist vs Christian debate summary

A newspaper reveals how the debate went -

"Ray Comfort was quick of the mark to try to open his opponents mind to the fact of God’s existence. In reply to Mr Cooke’s question, ‘Who made God?’ he said that it doesn’t deserve a question mark. It is really a statement.
"However, the explanation is very simple. Does space have an end? If it does - if there is a brick wall at the end of space that reads ‘The End,’ I want to know what’s behind the brick wall," said Mr Comfort. "By faith you and I are forced to believe that no matter in which direction we set off, space will never end. It just goes on and on and on, forever." God also has no beginning and no end. "From everlasting to everlasting, You are God," Moses said. God dwells in eternity but time dwells in God. God has no past and no future. He has already lived all our tomorrows as He has lived all our yesterdays. "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8).
The glorious dawn of God’s story begins with the stunning yet profoundly simple statement "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). He was already there. He is eternal. God created time, but He doesn’t live within Himself. He’s not bound by or limited to it. He is greater than Creation!
God can flick through time as you and I flick through the pages of a history book. Eventually God will withdraw time, and we will then dwell in eternity.

The Atheist Test

The professing atheist is really an ‘agnostic’ - one who claims who ‘doesn’t know’ if God exists.
"I don’t believe in atheists," Mr Comfort said. "For Mr Cooke, who calls himself an atheist, to say categorically, ‘There is no God,’ is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. However, no human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion. If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, ‘Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.’
"Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, ‘We do not know a millionth of one per cent about anything.’
"If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China, what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in the bank, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. Conversely, for me to say, ‘There is gold in China,’ I need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true."

Without God

Is it possible for a mere human, less than a tiny speck on a pebble of a planet in the midst of a vast galaxy, to say that the great God who created everything doesn’t exist?
Do you know that nowhere the Bible sets out to prove that God exists? It just frankly states the obvious: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 10:4).
It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful". It’s not that a person can’t find God, but that he won’t. In all his thoughts there is no room for God!
The word ‘atheist’ is made up of two Greek words: a - ‘without,’ and Theos - ‘God.’
By their own choice they are without God, and consequently without hope. Dwight Eisenhower said, "It takes no brains to be an atheist. Any stupid person can deny the existence of a supernatural power because man’s physical senses cannot detect it."

Seeing is believing

For Ray Comfort, the existence of God is what’s known as an ‘axiom,’ a self-evident truth.
"The fact that parallel lines never meet is an axiom," he said. If I were to devote my life to trying to either prove or disprove that parallel lines never meet, I would lack common sense. It is so obvious it doesn’t need to be proved or disproved.
"The existence of God is an axiom. It is obvious that if there is a creation, there must be a Creator. For things to me ‘made,’ logic, reason, intellect, and rationalism demand that there be a Maker. This should neither need to be proved or disproved.
"Let’s presume your problem is that ‘seeing is believing.’ If that is so, the next time you gaze at a blue sky, tell your eyes that they are not seeing correctly. The sky has no colour - ask any astronaut. It’s an illusion.
"Why do you believe a painting has a painter? Isn’t it purely because of the existence of the painter? Do you insist on seeing da Vinci before you believe that the Mona Lisa was painted? A reasonable argument could be that there may have been another painter, but never that there was no painter.
"Do you insist on seeing the builder before you believe that the house you are in was built? Is that your criteria for belief? Again, the building is ample proof that there was a builder.

God exists

"The most brilliant minds on earth cannot begin to recreate an eye. If you lose one, the best modern science can do for you is give you a glorified marble to slip in the slot. Do you realise that each eye you are currently using at the moment has 40,000,000 nerve endings? If you have the brain-power to make one nerve-ending, tell modern science so that they can begin to see their way to making their first eye.
"The fact is, we can’t make anything from nothing. Find the most brilliant scientist on God’s earth, put him in a laboratory, and ask him to make something out of nothing. He can’t do it. He doesn’t know how. We can re-create, but we cannot create. We can’t even make one grain of sand from nothing. If that is the case, how could we even begin to think for a moment that all of creation, the human body, animals, flowers, birds, trees, fruits, the seasons, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc., fell together by mere random chance?"
Nothing on this earth that was ‘made’ has no maker. You cannot have a "creation" without a Creator. Ray Comfort said it like this: "I don’t need ‘faith’ to believe in a Creator, all I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works."
However, all this wasn’t enough for Mr Cooke to change his mind. He still doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible... "

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The remarkable thing is that each one of the supposed "proofs" made by the Christian has long been defeated

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not much of a debate summary with only one side presented... and a bunch of half-assed arguments at that.

~Raithere

 

God exist?

I agree.

 

sorry I don't know, I got it off of a site but I didn't copy down the name

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I know the debate happened. It was advertised on Worthynew.com and heaps of other places. I thought it was pretty interesting. I'm still trying to find a copy of the whole debate though.

 

Atheists act like apes?

I agree.

 

The atheist couldn't have been much more than a random guy they pulled off the street. He certainly had nothing of a history in philosophy or theology.

 

Tyler

Whats so half-assed about those arguments?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL

I haven't heard a single atheist that mastered any such disciplines. All atheist I know read something in the Times doubting the Bible or didn't live out their freudian anal phase well.

Go ahead Tyler, do your worst.

Prove to me that God does not exist or withdraw in silence and face the fact that you know not enought to speak of such matters!

Peace.

 

Yes.

Nothing.

Theoretically, the non-existence of God could be proven by the presence of necessary absences without all the knowledge in the universe being known. eg. The problem of evil. Presence of God requires there be no evil. There is evil. ie Presence of necessary absence. Not that I'm arguing the problem of evil, of course.
Besides, I do not have to have knowledge of something to profess it. I don't need to have absolute proof, I could have a weak proof eg. Ockam's razor. By your dubious reasoning all Christians must be agnostic

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is the belief that we can not know whether there is a God or not. Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God(throwing aside the weak and strong definitions, which I must say are rather crappy). I can believe there isn't a God and yet acknowledge that I can't know this for sure.

Not by their own choice. By their judgement they are without God. I can't change my judgement just because I want to. The second part doesn't follow. I think it stems from the theist imagining how <i>he/she</i> would feel without God.

What the fool says in his heart does not affect the existence of a God.

A stupid person might well be the one who thinks a being does exist, even though there is no evidence.

If something were that obvious it would not be disputed. No one would try to prove it or disprove it and you wouldn't argue that it is an a priori truth. Parallel lines do not meet in Euclidian geometry, yes. However, curved space-time makes things interesting. What you thought was an axiom is not.

Now prove the universe is a creation. What are the hallmarks of a creation? How do you distinguish between the created and that that looks created but isn't?

Atheists and those who don't believe in magical creation do not hold that the eye, stars arranged itself by chance, nor that something came out of nothing. You and your fictitious

Your argument:

1) Life is complex

2) Look at the complexity

3) It is complex

4) Complex Complexity

5) God exists.


I suggest you go to http://www.infidels.org and check out their library.

 

LOL, I'm not too sure about how qualified this Atheist was in debating, but Ray Comfort also debated Ron Barrier, the national spokesman for American Atheists, Inc.


Atheist's National Spokesman Debates Christian Author on Good Friday at National Convention
By Michael Ireland
Chief Correspondent
ASSIST NEWS SERVICE
April 18, 2001

ORLANDO, FLORIDA (ANS) -- Earlier this year, Ron Barrier, the national spokesman for American Atheists, Inc. asked if Christian author Ray Comfort had the courage to face him in a debate in front of 300 atheists in Orlando, Florida, at their national convention. That debate took place on Good Friday, April 13, 2001.

"Quite a number of folks have been wanting to know how the debate went with Ron Barrier at the American Atheists' National Convention in Florida. So here's what happened," said Comfort after the event.

"Ron Meade (one of my associates) and I arrived at the hotel in Orlando and were surprised to find a large bowl of fruit in our room, with a welcome card from American Atheists. After I removed the plastic, Ron picked up the grapes, put one in his mouth and said, 'Wow. and I didn't think that atheists were such ni....' Suddenly he grabbed his throat, choked, and fell to the floor (he was just kidding). It was a blessing that they gave us fruit, because that's why we were there -- to see fruit," Comfort said.

"The next day, about 40 Christians showed up from around the country, including the editor of Bridge-Logos Publishers, and a film crew from Cross TV. I was concerned that my permission to videotape the debate was a bit flimsy. It was a letter from Ron Barrier that simply said, 'I don't care what you do!' said Comfort.

When the crew crept into the convention hall to set up, a security guard asked them what they were doing. She turned out to be a Christian and told them that she would be in prayer for the whole thing. "We then went into the atheist's bookstore and they kindly gave me a table upon which I could put copies of, 'How to make an Atheist Backslide,' ''Comfort recalled.

"While we were in the store the president of AA approached me, introduced herself and asked if the three large cameras in the convention hall were mine. When I said that they were she replied, 'Good. We will make sure we give you plenty of time to set up.'

"A short time later, Ron Barrier and I shook hands and the debate began. Each of us had 15 minutes, then 10 minutes, 8, and a close of 5 minutes. It was like a dream come true. Not only had I been given permission to fill their convention with Christian literature, but I was presenting my case for God's existence to 300 atheists as well as being broadcast live over their website.

"They laughed at my humor, and although there was unified mockery at some of the things that I said, I was able to go through the Ten Commandments, the fact of Judgment Day, the reality of Hell, the Cross, and the necessity of repentance, and no one stopped me," said Comfort.

After the initial debate (during the question times), one man stood up and challenged Comfort to eat some arsenic-laced peanuts he had in a box, based on God's promise in Mark 16:18. "I told him that if he could find the word 'peanuts' in the verse, I would eat them. The powerful intellectual incident climaxed their arguments against God's existence. Nuts," said Comfort.

"After the question time, Ron Barrier came over and we shook hands. He even let me give him a hug. They then had us co-sign two of my books. When he saw that I hade put '[That] idiot book! Ron Barrier, American Atheists, Inc.' on the cover, he was delighted. Some angry atheists came up to the platform afterwards and spat out sarcasm, while a number of others asked me to sign books for them, which was weird," Comfort said.

"The experience was a blessing beyond words -- to not only preach the whole counsel of God, but to give out scores of copies of our new booklet 'Scientific Facts in the Bible,' as well as free copies of my book.

"But here's what I am most excited about, Comfort said. "The video of the entire debate, which is called 'BC/AD: Barrier/Comfort Atheism Debate' should be available within a week or so through www.raycomfort.com. I think that this will have tremendous evangelistic potential. It's the sort of thing you could give to your neighbors because it was hosted by American Atheists, rather than some 'church.' The audio will be available for free downloading through the website in the near future, and will also be available as a low-cost tape.

"Thank you so much for your prayers -- a special thanks to those who prayed and fasted (one lady fasted for a week)," said Comfort.

If you would like to receive Ray Comfort's free monthly e-mail newsletter just send an e-mail with your email address to newsletter@raycomfort.com. You may also visit his website at: http://www.raycomfort.com.

 

Re: Tyler

I hope you don't mind if I don't get into a full fledged response to each of these but here it goes:

This is simply circular reasoning. He is defining God as that which is uncaused thus God needs no cause. He is also basing it upon the assumption that everything in existence exists only conditionally. He has no proof for this assumption. In fact, this is not really even an argument at all. He is simply making various unfounded assumptions about a God which he cannot prove exists in the first place.

Obviously, he has never heard of the "weak" atheistic position. Otherwise, I agree that making an absolute statement about an infinite unknown is absurd. However, one might state absolutely that there is no God that interacts with humanity in any evident manner.

Argument from Authority. And rather blase statement in any case.

Of course not, because you can't.

Argument Ad Hominem.

False assumption: Many, if not most, Atheists were formerly "faithful" Theists.

False assumption: Personally, I had no choice. When one is faced with the realization than all statements about God are human inventions and there are no facts to warrant such statements the conclusion is rather inevitable. There's also a nice little argumentum ad consequentiam; atheists are without hope.

Double fallacy: Authority and Ad Hominem.

Slothful Induction: He has not yet proven his axiom. Obviously, it is false otherwise there would be no atheists.

Actually, mathematicians will tell you that this is not proven. One might also point out that it depends on the Geometry involved. Certainly this seems to be the case in plain-old Cartesian Geometry but it is patently untrue in several others. Again, he obviously has a problem making hasty generalizations.

Circular definition: He states that the Universe is a creation thus it must have a creator.

False analogy: Whether the Universe is like a painting and is thus has a creator or not is precisely what is under contention.

Again, false analogy. A better one would be; if you see dots in the sand do you immediately assume a human created them or do you consider that perhaps raindrops did?

Argument from ignorance. Just because we cannot make an eye does not mean that an eye could not develop naturally. I cannot make it rain, that does not mean that rain is caused by miracles.

Syllogistic fallacy.

Circular definition... again.

Ad Hominem.

Because he has yet to give a single argument that is not full of errors. Duh.

~Raithere

 

Re: Tyler

Please do note that it took me less than half an hour to refute every single one of his arguments. Thus my opinion stands... they were half-assed arguments.

~Raithere

 

You know, I haven't gone through this debate for quite some time. So maybe I'll do it for practice!


"Prove to me that God does not exist or withdraw in silence and face the fact that you know not enought to speak of such matters!"

Just to begin, I cannot prove that god does not exist. That is ridiculous. I can simply prove that it is an illogical belief. Before you begin to read my reply I urge you to stop and take a deep breath and realize that I am not your enemy. Just stop and think logically and forget your emotions when you reply and all will go smoothly. That said, I will procede to refute the arguements in the first post...


"However, the explanation is very simple. Does space have an end? If it does - if there is a brick wall at the end of space that reads ‘The End,’ I want to know what’s behind the brick wall"

If space is finite it is very possible to exist in a three-dimensional, non-ending shape. There are a number of theories on this. One is called the Orange analogy and has actually been discused quite recently at sciforums - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15454. I seem to recall about 4 or 5 months ago I read an article about a new theory with a new part of math involving a shape which from the inside appears infinite but from the outside is quite finite. I'm no physics expert, so if you want to learn more about that - check out the Physics section!


"By faith you and I are forced to believe that no matter in which direction we set off, space will never end. It just goes on and on and on, forever"

Er....no. The idea of a finite Universe is widely believed. I'm not sure what this guy is talking about.


"The professing atheist is really an ‘agnostic’ - one who claims who ‘doesn’t know’ if God exists"

A common mistake by theists is to label an atheist an agnostic. Agnostic means you hold no real opinion of whether or not there is a god. A 'Weak Atheist' is one who professes that there is no logical way to prove god does not exist, mearly that there is no logical reason to believe in one.


"Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, ‘We do not know a millionth of one per cent about anything.’ "

This is known as arguement from authority. It is a logical fallacy. Einstein called himself an atheist - doesn't prove there's no god.


"Do you know that nowhere the Bible sets out to prove that God exists? It just frankly states the obvious: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" (Psalm 10:4)."

Quoting the Bible does not prove the Bible's truth. That is circular logic and not logic at all.


"The fact that parallel lines never meet is an axiom," he said. If I were to devote my life to trying to either prove or disprove that parallel lines never meet, I would lack common sense. It is so obvious it doesn’t need to be proved or disproved"

If everyone in history had thought this way, we would be without many of our advances in medicine, sciences and math. Not to mention philosophy.


"Do you insist on seeing the builder before you believe that the house you are in was built? Is that your criteria for belief? Again, the building is ample proof that there was a builder."

I would like to ask you a question here, Prisme.
Have you ever been to the north or south pole?


"The most brilliant minds on earth cannot begin to recreate an eye. If you lose one, the best modern science can do for you is give you a glorified marble to slip in the slot. Do you realise that each eye you are currently using at the moment has 40,000,000 nerve endings? If you have the brain-power to make one nerve-ending, tell modern science so that they can begin to see their way to making their first eye."

What proof do you have that science will never be able to make an eye? A hundred years ago people would laugh their arse off at the idea of computers if you told them about what your typing on.


"He can’t do it. He doesn’t know how."

So? A hundred years ago a scientist wouldn't be able to tell you how to build my electric guitar, would he?


"If that is the case, how could we even begin to think for a moment that all of creation, the human body, animals, flowers, birds, trees, fruits, the seasons, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc., fell together by mere random chance?"

That humans cannot currently do it does not in any way prove that random chance can't do it. This is a very common mistake.


"He still doesn’t believe in the God of the Bible..."

None of these arguement prove god exists. None even deal with proving that if a god did exist, he is in indeed the god of the christian bible.

 

Haha, well now you got it from two of us! What's interesting is how identical our arguements are and neither of us talked about this before, eh?

 

RE: 2 atheists

I haven't grasped much of what you were saying Tyler, you tend to bounce around a lot and I can't seem to understand where you are going with your ideas... sorry.

In any event, let me propose something based on a different ground that you chaps are used to fighting on:

I believe in a God. I reject the bible and all of its scriptures for man has clearly never scientifically experienced God. Thus no church has yet to adopt such a God.
In addition, I do not claim any characteristics to this God for man is incapable of discerning them.

However, I will say this about him:
He is what makes being possible.

In order to elaborate, I will take a look at the universe:
The World is either a homogenous, closed Cosmos(Greeks and Newton) or an infinite heterogenous Universe(Einstein).

Knowing this, I can conclude that God is more likely than not playing a role in either systems:

If we live in a ordered Cosmos, God is what has stored order within the Cosmos and gathered the necessary elements for its perpetual state of 'homeostatic-ness'. It is possbile to examine phenomenons and build a science on the Cause-Effect balance in the stability of the world.
In this case, God would be to me the clock-maker, the one that could answer: why order rather than chaos?

If we live in a infinite Universe, the foundation of science is on shakyer grounds for the simple fact that knowledge would thus not follow a necessary Cause-Effect cycle. Why is that? Because the Universe, not being finite and ordered, becomes an 'amalgame' a sort of incoherent mixture of elements that are not ordered as in Newton's mecanic nor as the Greeks saw it, but rather presented as being totally contingent. Left and right we have unpredictable patterns, no existence or movement is necessary for the Universe itself is ever changing in its conditions of existence.
In such a world, God would be to me what holds such things as galaxies together and permits the statistically impossbile odds of man being made out of goo and dust. To the point, God would be what Heidegger considers: the keeper of Being.. ou "le berger de l'être".


Fun fact to chew on:

Odds of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability that all the amino acids are left handed and being combined with the proper peptide bonds 1 over 10 (950)

= 1 chance in 100, 000, 000 (add 942 zeros and your close)

When it comes to the haemoglobin molecules, there are 574 amino acids which means the odds are even less probable.
In only one out of your billions of red blood cells, there are 280,000,000 haemoglobin molecules.

The proposed age of the Earth does not allow the formation of a single protein by the trial and error method. Even if we suppose that the process of amino acids combining and decomposing at the very beginning of the Universe, there would still be hundreds of thousands years missing.

If your having trouble digesting this biological fact, remind yourselves of Stanley Miller who attempted to show that amino acids could have come into existence by chance and begin forming proteins.
Although he managed to 'create' 20 amino acids, they revealed themselves to be:

1- Inorganic

2- The "cold trap" he used isolated the amino acids from natural surroundings. Natural surroundings would have immediately corrupted the weak amino acids. And of course, this isolated mecanism did not exist in the beginning of time.

3-Miller used an unrealistic environment. American scientits such as J.P. Ferris and C.T. Chen would reproduce his experiment without the amonia that Miller used that was deemed as inexistent at the primitve stages of the Earth's life.

Today Miller's experiments are totally disregarded by the scientific community. Amino acids, proteins and cells have NEVER, EVER been produced by chance.

Now if this isn't enough, Protein sythesis cannot occur in water.
When amino acids gather to form a protein, they release one water molecule when forming this "peptide bond".
The "Chatelier Principle" in chemistry shows that it is not possible for a reaction that releases water (condensation reaction) to take place in a hydrate environement.
The realisation of such a reaction to take place in a hydrate environement is classed in the 'least probability to occur'among all chemical reactions.

Thus evolutionists have a problem that they rarely discuss: if not in water, where???? Land is even more problematic as we know.

Miller critics on which my readings were based on:

Feb 1998, Earth magazine p.34
March 1998, National Geographic p.68
1975, Journal of American Chemical Society p.2964
The origin of species revisited, 1991 p.304


My argument is simple:

Either we live in a highly, pre-defined world. (a God is necessary to instore order and perpetual movement... scientifically impossible by the way)
Or we live in a Universe that should not be and which its own existence can only be the proof of the existence of an unknown form of creation.

Peace

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, difficult subject. One, and I hate to admit that I agree with Tyler, but those WERE half-assed arguments. R refuted them easily, as most of us could have done. But he did it with style. I've always despised anyone who would use edison as a claim of anything. The man was nasty, he didn't bathe, and was frequently called "dung" by friends and family alike. If you want to use someone, use einstein. He was brilliant. And an atheist(see earlier thread about him).

As to Prisme's last post, you cannot associate spontaneous life theory with atheists and by disputing the theory, dispute the group. That is ethically and logically wrong. Not all atheists believe in the "big bang theory" any more than all christians believe in creationist theorys(though it is strong in america). Atheists typically follow science the process vs. any particular theory that they process posits. I am atheist, but I believe in the concepts of science to base my belief. And science is the process of Testing, questioning if you will. It is not in the habit of saying "well, since we don't have a lot of data, we're just going to assume". You are using a backhanded method of dealing with Tyler. Why not deal with R this way? Because you know that he will tear up your arguments I wager.

 

I can't stop the laughing!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

WTF do you mean ethically and logically wrong???? There is no ethics involved in my proposition my friend, and logic refers to a structure not the validity of a statement:
ex.:

1-Birds have 3 wings = FALSE NOT ILLOGICAL!!!!!!
2-My father is either in or out of Mexico = True and logical.
3-Air is and is not = Illogical

To all the atheist that talk on this thread: please stop always saying things are illogical if you don't know what illogical means.

Listen man, I know you must have typed your post early but Big Bang or not, all atheists must believe in some form of evolutionism. Coming from the monkey is optional, but originating from sponteaneous cells is not if you do not believe in a Creation.
Only two ways to go about it. If you got a third possibility I am dying to know it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Another thing, if you are a christian in the sense that you follow the Pope and the scriptures, you must belive in the Creation. You can't be the true definition of a christian if you don't accept the creation... you are just a believer and a pretty lame one if you think God let everything happen by chance.

Errr... my title is called RE: 2 atheists. R is the second one.

You think that science never assumes????? Under what rock do you live under man? Pharmaceutical companies are always claiming the purity of certain drugs only to have them silently withdrawn from the market. Physical science is barely a science in the sense that we have never actually seen an atom (it's just a theory my friends), the theory that the universe is in continuous expansion is based on mere equations while others still maintain we live in a closed Cosmos... Mathemathics are abtract concepts put together that could one day be shown to be false, it has limitations also: infinitely positive or negative, nobody knows where 'pi' actually came from certain numbers are not known to truly exist etc... Sociology and Psychology are happy when they get 60% validity in their experiments because they rarely actually get that much. Every science in the world is always contradicting themselves and re-adjusting its claims that have too hastely been said to be certain.
So a true person that seeks thruth would not say that he puts his faith on science. It is just another more socially accepted form of faith in the facts that could tomorrow be shown to be false!

Say what you like, that science is only a constant search process for the truth, but the fact is that the scientific community and its followers hold their actual 'fact's up high and act like they just got Christ delivered in their hands.


And finally: Saying that R will surely beat my arguments hasn't said anything against them yet. So you have just made an argument of authority pal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Next!