False Arguments

I was in some discussion with some guy the other day. We were talking about several things, particularly in religious things. At one point, we were disagreeing each other about something.

We were disagreeing each other on the matter of the existence of the Atomic Bomb. He said that the existence of the atomic bomb was in the moslem holy book. I disagree. Not even Albert Einstein, at the time he conclude his equation to E=MC^2 knows that an atomic bomb will be created. It is somebody else came up with the idea of harvesting the energy of the rest mass of an atom. I added, A.E. is not even a moslem.

He said, how do I know if A.E. did not read the holy book before he come up the the equation. He could have read them. I said, what for. Reading scientific papers is more useful than reading the holy book when comes to scientific research.

He argued that the holy book was created 1600 years ago, and A.E. came up with the equation in the early 1900. Since the holy book 'mentioned' about the atomic bomb earlier than A.E., and then confirmed later when the atomic bomb was truly created, it makes the holy book truly true. Well, I don't have any problem and I don't have any arguments about how true the holy book is. I just wonder if his claim about the atomic bomb mentioned in the holy book is true, or perhaps, was the holy book talking about an atomic bomb or something else? Human are good in exaggerating things I suppose.

Then I think, it is useless arguing with these kind of people. He does not know anything about history of science and mathematics. He argues just to win. Not knowing that he is exposing his 'less knowledgeable-ness' to the other party. Dumber will of course believe. What is better than a good piece of assumption?

Perhaps, I can get along well with humble people. People who admit not knowing when they don't know. I lost respect to people who pretend knowing just because of trying to save face.