ZeroBlacktip
-34
5
ZeroBlacktip has not written any posts yet.
ZeroBlacktip has not written any posts yet.
So lets assume that Being a fundamentalist Christian is P=1, and being a fundamentalist atheist is P=0. Keeping in mind that I didn't use the term P=1 originally, and even in context it was not set down as a binary equation (I was assuming that the 1 meant you were sure there is no god, not an immutable belief in the fact, while .75 meant you might lean heavily towards no god but had some doubts).
Yes, P = 1 is the theologically required Christian belief. However, and I've never even been Catholic, your post is rife with Atheist propaganda about Catholicism that shows you did not do your research before condemning an... (read 742 more words →)
Fixed. Thanks a lot.
Because Atheist means P = 1. And isn't using the correct terms important? I also wouldn't say I need a cup of flour when I really needed 3/4 of a cup. If you're not sure, say you are "Without Knowledge", not you are "Without God." Is it so hard to admit you don't know? Even when I disagree with someone, I can admit I may know less than them, how else might I learn?
Of course, then I go and fact check, because they might be wrong too. But people can open paths you would never have looked down if you're willing to say "I don't Know" once in a while, instead of closing off conversation.
No real beef with the main issue, but as for the Extra Credit Problems:
I imagine I would weigh it depending on the group of friends I had with me, and previous experience with each of them in the field of guessing, geometry, even basic arithmetic. After I considered all that, I would then adjust my answer depending on each one's credibility.
Think back on what I've done compared to what he's done. His emotional concern is actually irrelevant, because its entirely possible he has gotten upset for reasons such as the dishes are supposed to be done on a rotation, but he uses more dishes when he knows its your turn, while yours
Yes, but the point of this paper was rational discussion. People who refuse to research their own religion are not rational, yes? So why are we including them as candidates for rational debate? Call me a cynic, but I would rather debate with a reasonable Xtian that has a solid theological grounding than argue with an unreasonable one who hasn't bothered to learn his bible.
And rock is a metaphor, as well as a play on words for his name. Doesn't make him the pope, could just be saying that his faith needed to be emulated. Jesus was sort of known for metaphor, but not for supporting rigid belief structures designed to bilk their followers.