Did the Red Sea Part?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Yeah, but you said that I said he's a Muslim. I just said I suspect he is. That's more than a reasonable suspicion given the fact he has a Muslim name and lives in Egypt.
we know, you keep insisting, which is a pretty strong suspicion for have no actual evidence
Red Stateler wrote:
Racism is the assertion that one race is inferior to another. I'm applying statistical probability. There's at least a 90% probability that he's Muslim.
and a 10% chance he's not, look at what region he is from, then give me a number of muslims to non muslims from that area.
Red Stateler wrote:
I've never known one to have a western name. In fact, I've known several who have changed their western names to Muslim names upon conversion.
im not talking about your limited interaction with islamic people. im stating that all religions have intermingled names. Are all davids and elishas jews? are all marks, peters, pauls christians?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
Let me get this straight.... You're arguing that suspecting somebody is Muslim based on a 90%+ chance is an unreasonable suspiscion? Yeah....OK. And you think liberals should run the war on terror? :laugh:
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Why do you call it a Muslim name? Yu do realie that Arab Christians and Druze also use these names. It's like calling your name a Christian name instead of an American one. Hmmm, maybe yours is a bad example.
There are Christian names like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mary, etc... Do you think Egypt, which is 90% Muslim, would hire a non-Muslim to head their national archeology projects? I doubt it. Of course, my suspicion is perfectly reasonable since the country is 90% Muslim. Those are good enough odds to double-down.
Hiring a Muslim and saying he has a Muslim name are two separate things. I'm not arguing your point on whether he is or isn't Muslim, he probably is. But the fact that he has an Arabic name and you can't tell a Muslim Arabic name from a non-Muslim Arabic name is what I'm arguing about.
"You can lead a horse to Vista, but it won't get in stall." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Hiring a Muslim and saying he has a Muslim name are two separate things. I'm not arguing your point on whether he is or isn't Muslim, he probably is. But the fact that he has an Arabic name and you can't tell a Muslim Arabic name from a non-Muslim Arabic name is what I'm arguing about.
"You can lead a horse to Vista, but it won't get in stall." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Hiring a Muslim and saying he has a Muslim name are two separate things. I'm not arguing your point on whether he is or isn't Muslim, he probably is. But the fact that he has an Arabic name and you can't tell a Muslim Arabic name from a non-Muslim Arabic name is what I'm arguing about.
Of course it's possible he's not Muslim. But given the very high probability that he is, my suspscions are well-founded.
-
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. Therefore, your belief that God does not exist isn't based on proof. It's based on faith. Believing God does not exist and not knowing whether or not he exists are two different positions. Athiests believe God does not exist. This position cannot be proven, therefore it is taken on faith (faith in science, faith in lack of evidence, faith on something, but faith nonetheless).
Edmundisme wrote:
Athiests believe God does not exist.
NO. Atheist do not believe that god exists. Lack of faith is not faith. Put another way the statement 'I do not believe that god exists' is not same as 'I believe that god does not exist'
-
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. Therefore, your belief that God does not exist isn't based on proof. It's based on faith. Believing God does not exist and not knowing whether or not he exists are two different positions. Athiests believe God does not exist. This position cannot be proven, therefore it is taken on faith (faith in science, faith in lack of evidence, faith on something, but faith nonetheless).
Edmundisme wrote:
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. Therefore, your belief that God does not exist isn't based on proof. It's based on faith.
Again, that's your belief.
Edmundisme wrote:
Believing God does not exist and not knowing whether or not he exists are two different positions.
If I prove something to be true, I believe it is true. If I don't believe something to be true, it is because of lack of proof. A implies B is equivalent to not B implies not A.
Edmundisme wrote:
Athiests believe God does not exist. This position cannot be proven, therefore it is taken on faith (faith in science, faith in lack of evidence, faith on something, but faith nonetheless).
Sorry, I don't believe that.
"Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weasling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel." - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheists have a belief. They believe there is no God.
How is that different than the belief that there are no unicorns? Or Superman? Are those religions as well?
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance. I consider personal experience. The evidence, in my opinion, greatly favors God. A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists. I am not trying to prove His existence. I'm merely pointing to the things that I consider evidence to His existence. If you feel that this isn't evidence, then I understand your unwillingness to believe in God. However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different. What is your evidence that he does not exist?
-
Let me get this straight.... You're arguing that suspecting somebody is Muslim based on a 90%+ chance is an unreasonable suspiscion? Yeah....OK. And you think liberals should run the war on terror? :laugh:
Red Stateler wrote:
suspecting somebody is Muslim based on a 90%+ chance is an unreasonable suspiscion?
about the same way i can suspect you are white anglo saxon
Red Stateler wrote:
war on terror
:laugh: like the war on drugs? lest go ahead and start a war against obecity while were at it, or any other abstract concept that no matter how hard we try we cant control. timothy mcvay was a terrorist, not islamic either.
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance. I consider personal experience. The evidence, in my opinion, greatly favors God. A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists. I am not trying to prove His existence. I'm merely pointing to the things that I consider evidence to His existence. If you feel that this isn't evidence, then I understand your unwillingness to believe in God. However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different. What is your evidence that he does not exist?
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
whats the difference?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Athiests believe God does not exist.
NO. Atheist do not believe that god exists. Lack of faith is not faith. Put another way the statement 'I do not believe that god exists' is not same as 'I believe that god does not exist'
oilFactotum wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: Athiests believe God does not exist. NO. Atheist do not believe that god exists. Lack of faith is not faith. Put another way the statement 'I do not believe that god exists' is not same as 'I believe that god does not exist'
I think you're wrong about atheism. Atheism is the doctrine or belief there is no God (taken from dictionary.com). Atheism does not describe a lack of belief, it describes a belief, and there is a difference. I think what your driving at is more closely related to agnosticism.
-
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance. I consider personal experience. The evidence, in my opinion, greatly favors God. A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists. I am not trying to prove His existence. I'm merely pointing to the things that I consider evidence to His existence. If you feel that this isn't evidence, then I understand your unwillingness to believe in God. However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different. What is your evidence that he does not exist?
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns.
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Edmundisme wrote:
am not trying to prove His existence.
And I am not trying to disprove his existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. Therefore, your belief that God does not exist isn't based on proof. It's based on faith.
Again, that's your belief.
Edmundisme wrote:
Believing God does not exist and not knowing whether or not he exists are two different positions.
If I prove something to be true, I believe it is true. If I don't believe something to be true, it is because of lack of proof. A implies B is equivalent to not B implies not A.
Edmundisme wrote:
Athiests believe God does not exist. This position cannot be proven, therefore it is taken on faith (faith in science, faith in lack of evidence, faith on something, but faith nonetheless).
Sorry, I don't believe that.
"Marge, don't discourage the boy! Weasling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel." - Homer Simpson Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. Therefore, your belief that God does not exist isn't based on proof. It's based on faith. Again, that's your belief.
Well, if you believe there are no absolute truths, the debate is pointless. I assume there are absolutes. So, you point out that "lack of proof cannot be proof itself" is simply my belief. Do you believe otherwise?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
If I don't believe something to be true, it is because of lack of proof
Again, atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an active belief that God does not exist. There is a difference.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: Athiests believe God does not exist. This position cannot be proven, therefore it is taken on faith (faith in science, faith in lack of evidence, faith on something, but faith nonetheless). Sorry, I don't believe that.
If we can pick and choose definitions for the words we use, then communication (nevermind debate) is impossible. If we don't agree on the definition of a word, then that word can't help convey meaning, it can only hinder it. The actual definition of atheism is the "belief or doctine that there is no God". If this is not what you mean when you say "atheism" then atheism isn't the right word to use.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: Athiests believe God does not exist. NO. Atheist do not believe that god exists. Lack of faith is not faith. Put another way the statement 'I do not believe that god exists' is not same as 'I believe that god does not exist'
I think you're wrong about atheism. Atheism is the doctrine or belief there is no God (taken from dictionary.com). Atheism does not describe a lack of belief, it describes a belief, and there is a difference. I think what your driving at is more closely related to agnosticism.
Edmundisme wrote:
I think you're wrong about atheism.
I don't think so. This is from an atheist's web site: "Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist." From the same site "Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so" A more nuanced(I know some people on this board find that word scary) view of atheism can be found here[^] What you call an atheist is describe here as a "strong atheist", and what I am describing as atheist is in this website described as a "weak atheist".
-
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
whats the difference?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
If you don't know whether or not God exists, you could not hold a belief one way or the other. You could truthfully answer "no" to both questions, "do you believe God exists?" and "do you believe God does not exist?". In other words, you've drawn no conclusions either way. Christians draw the conclusion that God exists. Atheists draw the conclusion that God does not exist.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Others would call it the scientific method, that of proof required not lack of proof.
And yet your lack of proof in the non-existence of God is enough to prove He doesn't exist? :confused:
Non-believers don't have to prove anything. If you say statement A, you have to back it up. Everyone else does not have to back !A up.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
If you don't know whether or not God exists, you could not hold a belief one way or the other. You could truthfully answer "no" to both questions, "do you believe God exists?" and "do you believe God does not exist?". In other words, you've drawn no conclusions either way. Christians draw the conclusion that God exists. Atheists draw the conclusion that God does not exist.
but whats the difference in not believing in god and saying he doesnt exist, i dont follow
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns.
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Edmundisme wrote:
am not trying to prove His existence.
And I am not trying to disprove his existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Consider the implications of the answers to the questions "does God exists?" and "do unicorns exist?" and they suddenly lose their simmilarity.
oilFactotum wrote:
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God. Atheism is an active belief that God does not exist. I'm not sure what word best describes someone who neither believes that God exists or that he does not exist, but I think "agnostic" is what most people use to describe this position. Whatever it's called, it is not the same as atheism.
-
You said, "God may have parted the water but who did the walking over the sea floor?" This is not different than your original objection that it is impossible for a sea to part in the manner described in the bible. We believe God parted the sea. Why should we then stumble on the sea floor? We Science bows to God, not the other way around. I said, "Those who believe God isn't take it on faith." You responded, "If you call not believing in a pink tea-pot orbiting the Sun then yes, I have faith. Others would call it the scientific method, that of proof required not lack of proof." Atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God. It is the acting belief that he does not exist. Where is your proof that God does not exist? You cannot prove God does not exist any more than I can prove that He does. How is does your belief require less faith than mine?
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God. It is the acting belief that he does not exist.
It is both. Atheism means "without theism" - NOT "anti theism". Atheism in its purest sense is not a belief - it is disbelief! If it's summer and you don't see snow falling down, would it be reasonable to assume there is snow on the ground? There is no justification to believe that there is snow on the ground. That is EXACTLY how an atheist thinks about theism (supernaturalism to be exact). Just as you don't believe in Norse mythology, I do not believe in your god.
Edmundisme wrote:
How is does your belief require less faith than mine?
Because it is YOU who is making an assertion here. Had you not been around claiming that god(s) exists, atheists wouldn't have argued. The burden of proof is on you.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I think you're wrong about atheism.
I don't think so. This is from an atheist's web site: "Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist." From the same site "Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so" A more nuanced(I know some people on this board find that word scary) view of atheism can be found here[^] What you call an atheist is describe here as a "strong atheist", and what I am describing as atheist is in this website described as a "weak atheist".
I'm not sure I'll use an atheist’s website to determine what the word "atheism" means. I prefer to use an accredited dictionary. Sometime granularity can help clear things up. Other times it simply muddies the water. To break atheism up into groups of varying convictions confuses conversation. If atheism means a belief or doctrine that there is no God, then a different word needs to be used to describe a position that claims neither to believe he exists or that he doesn't exist. Why not call “weak atheism” “weak theism”? I think they would be the same thing.
-
but whats the difference in not believing in god and saying he doesnt exist, i dont follow
I win because I have the most fun in life...
Not believing in God does not by itself (without greater context) imply a belief that God does not exist. Another way to say "I believe God exists" is "I think God exists". Likewise, another way to say "I believe God does not exist" is "I think God does not exist". Both imply that a bit of thought has been given to the matter and a conclusion has been reached. But suppose someone hadn't given the matter much thought, or that they were unable to draw a conclusion? This particular person would not hold a belief that God exists and they would not hold a belief that God does not exists. They simply wouldn't draw a conclusion one way or the other. So, if some statement (we'll call it "A") is the opposite of another statement (we'll call it "B"), then saying, "I don't believe A" does not necessarily mean you believe B. Perhaps there was not enough evidence to believe A, and yet not enough to believe B. It's a subtle logical difference.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Hiring a Muslim and saying he has a Muslim name are two separate things. I'm not arguing your point on whether he is or isn't Muslim, he probably is. But the fact that he has an Arabic name and you can't tell a Muslim Arabic name from a non-Muslim Arabic name is what I'm arguing about.
Of course it's possible he's not Muslim. But given the very high probability that he is, my suspscions are well-founded.