Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Boring!Whatever my problems may be, they don't take the form of creating several threads where I can spamfest as the sole contributor.
Boring!Whatever my problems may be, they don't take the form of creating several threads where I can spamfest as the sole contributor.
Unbeknownst to them, it's merely their behaviour.Actually I really disagree with that.
Spammers are usually very self-assured and confident, the content of what they're saying offends!
As requested, I have started two new threads. I look forward to your contributions. Here are the links:....
Then start an appropriate thread, and if it doesn't become populated by stupidity, I may just engage. ....
Start a thread, and if it's not populated with stupidity, I just might engage.
It felt good to get it off my chest.The rest of your post is just the same old twiddle
A person with real compassion feels the same about all life.
Ask yourself why you still beat your wife.
Jan.
That's just the way you'll be remembered, completely void of compassion.
Why?
Jan.
So do you.
Jan.
///It is difficult to assess the approaches of theists and so I will work with my strawman constructed for the purpose of making this observation.
Believers seem to think science is the enemy, which is interesting given that science makes no claim that has not been tested and proved and it is happy to throw out a model if just one single aspect of the claim is wrong...it only takes one problem and science rejects any idea that it may have carried for ages.
And religion holds on to stuff even when all followers have given up on a bad idea and moved on...stine your bad kid, slavery is good notion, kill non observers of the sabath...
Is that not so neat about science...everything it claims has evidence from observation and it calls upon all involved to review the claim and hold it to the strongest proof.
The moment it can determine something is wrong the whole model gets thrown out.
Yet science is seen as the enemy of the believer...you would think the environment nurturing truth would sppeal to the believer but clearly not.
However what believers fail to understand...If you defeat science in your own minds that defeat does not take your claims forward...reject science all you like but understand you still have not supported your claim at all.
Failure of the big bang or evolution does not prove God to exist...God has yet to be proven to exist and that has not yet been done.
So evolution is wrong ????...please tell me how that shows a God...big bang is wrong ????...please tell me how that shows a God.
Please tell me how unsupported supperstitious beliefs show a God.
I think the bible has a passage that points out that a house needs a solid foundation ...a claim needs a solid foundation and one that presents the notion of a creator needs absolutely hard evidence at least given the same burden of proof each of our scientific models require...if the God story has less it can never achieve status higher than just another superstition or story like bigfoot, visiting aliens, hobbits, fire breathing dragons, fairies, ghosts, demons, gobblins, zombies, and all the fictional characters in every book of fiction ever written.
The fact these folk think they can logically argue a God into existence simply shows their minds are less than functional...you still need evidence ...the evidence you do not have.
Alex
You have the luxury of a mind that is able to and capable of thinking and not boxed into a world view that has nothing going for it and in fact demands faith to establish that it should be followed.///
There is a story in the babble claiming it is wise to build a house upon a rock & foolish to build upon the sand. I prefer neither but until recently, sand would be better. Strong water and/or wind would much more likely move the house on the rock. The house on the sand, at least, is settled in & could easier be rooted in. I do not know how deep sand usually goes but while surface sand can be loose, under that, sand is packed very densely. In case of an earthquake, the house would slide off the rock but not the sand unless the earthquake is close enough that there will be little difference between the 2. Now we have machines which can anchor the house into the rock which would make it better for wind & water. Above all tho, how well the house itself is designed & constructed is most important. I do not know how the heck so many could think that story is good. 1 need not be an expert to think it thru.
<>
The OP is still, and will remain, regardless of the complexities of early Christian history, a fundamentally dishonest misrepresentation of a piece of perfectly good scientific research.Even though it's not clear what you want to discuss, it seems either way, that you require some degree of familiarity with the complexities involved in the "standard" version of early christian history.
The bullshit "is".The OP is still, and will remain, regardless of the complexities of early Christian history, a fundamentally dishonest misrepresentation of a piece of perfectly good scientific research.
And it has been defended now for 115 pages, by overt Abrahamic theists.
The question becomes: why and how do overt Abrahamic theists come to post like that on science forums?
Did you miss the point I was making about the futility of expounding treatises that have flexible premises at their core?
It's easy enough to repeat again.
What do you mean?The bullshit "is".