It doesn’t matter what the OP considers( which is just speculation on your part), because that doesn’t change the results of the poll itself. So far, the results are:
Strong atheist- 29.68%
Casual atheist- 23.23%
Agnostic- 9.68%
Devout theist- 12.90%
Casual theist- 10.97%
Pantheist- 1.29%
Animist- 0.65%
“Spiritual but not religious”- 3.23%
I believe he was speaking to the OP of this thread - reefshark - and not you.
I think Clothahump was referring to the OP of this thread - the absent Shark. And he’s correct. The fundy/evangelical crowd views anyone not of their persuasion as “atheist”. It’s their current hateword.
eta: yeah, what simster said
I have and he doesn’t. He says in the book that just because the Earth is round, doesn’t mean that there’s land in the rest of it or that people live there. (Back then, the common scientific belief was that it was physically impossible to cross hemispheres. He’s responding to the arguments that, if the earth is round, the people in the other parts of the Earth couldn’t be descended from Noah as well as the argument that the people in the other quadrants would be necessarily damned because missionaries would never be able to get there. He’s defending the idea of a round earth, not attacking it.
Something to do with its seven-season run?
I thought that proved entropy?
I’m curious - what was their figuring for why that was?
Egad, you’re right. I thought I was posting in the other thread, somehow.
I’ll go stand in the “I’ve been duly corrected corner.”
Dante put the mountain of Purgatory opposite to Jerusalem on a spherical earth.
I don’t recall anything about the impossibility of getting there. But who would want to? The shadow from that thing would just ruin the property values. Makes the eyesore of Trump Tower look like a pile of a child’s blocks.
I can’t find a cite at the moment, but as I recall, the heat of the equatorial region was believed to be completely impassable.
Like it got warmer as you went farther south, and they extrapolated that data so that it got hotter still going farther south?
They knew that people lived at the equator, didn’t they?
Yep.
I don’t think so - for quite a while, all they knew was that when people traveled toward the equator, it got more and more unpleasant (in Africa, of course, it was desert)
Here’s a cite about an early Common Era Roman geographer who believed that the equator was impassable Pomponius Mela - Wikipedia
“The general views of the De situ orbis mainly agree with those current among Greek writers from Eratosthenes to Strabo; the latter was probably unknown to Mela. But Pomponius is unique among ancient geographers in that, after dividing the earth into five zones, of which two only were habitable, he asserts the existence of antichthones, inhabiting the southern temperate zone inaccessible to the folk of the northern temperate regions from the unbearable heat of the intervening torrid belt.”
There’s quite a bit of hypocrisy in this post, given that your criticism is directed at other posters in this thread.
I give you two people who matter in this debate - I defy any creationist to logically recant the arguments made by Christopher Hitchens (plenty of debates on you-tube) or Richard Dawkins. These people are not fools nor are they illogical like many of their debated opponents.
Nobody with any brain whatsoever (who has not been completely brainwashed) could possibly argue having seen debates with either of these people against religious proponents could contend with any credibility that creation has any credibility whatsoever.
True, so existence had to be the first thing, what isn’t in existence isn’t existing.
I would have to re-read the entire book to see the quote but if you read it yourself you can find the passage. I was amazed when I read it.
Not much time for SD these days, so just did a brief scan, and not sure if this poll by TWduke has been shown. It was done in 2009, and has a larger sampling of Dopers on their religious beliefs or the lack of it.
I don’t see why God has to be the universe, God is invisible so couldn’t be that the universe it has to exist first. and since we know it exists we know it is in existence.
Is this the passage you have in mind Philip Schaff: NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"Chapter 9.—Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes.
But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. "
I didn’t say God has to be the universe. I said that God might be the universe. It’s one possibility among a very great many.
That specific possibility refutes your contention that God couldn’t create the universe because God needs “some place” to be. If God is that place, your claim fails.
All I’m saying is that the specific formula you have recited, not once but several times, simply does not function. It’s a semantic dodge, without real meaning. It can, with equal facility, prove that the Big Bang couldn’t have happened.
Again, please, no offense. I actually do agree with most of what you say. It’s just that one specific formulaic contention that I think is completely wrong.