Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, just read it as written. I consider it a public duty.Should we read that as if you speak it in a normal voice or a creepy batman voice?
No, just read it as written. I consider it a public duty.Should we read that as if you speak it in a normal voice or a creepy batman voice?
No, just read it as written. I consider it a public duty.
Phew.Atheism does not offer a historical review and explanation of divine creation.
It just offers; "Thou shalt have no false gods before thee", on the premise that all gods are false, based on available evidence, statistically NONE.
It's not complicated, historically or otherwise. There is no historical evidence of a God at all.
There is historical evidence of belief in gods, but that goes back to before recorded history.
By your own admission, you declare an absolute intolerance for any perceived lacking in truth or detail, yet you have a world view stacked to the hilt with such inadequacies. It's not just you, but rather the nature of our position to bring "reason" to our world view, and not vice versa.What have I made up?
What?
You made the claim back it up or withdraw it...Your claim implies that I have told a lie...show it to me...if a lie I will fix it and appologise.
Alex
Please be specific.yet you have a world view stacked to the hilt with such inadequacies.
Not sure I understand you.It's not just you, but rather the nature of our position to bring "reason" to our world view, snd not vice versa.
maybe a realisation that your position is weak.
Yes, that's about the size of it...
Here's what I think is happening:
1. This board is populated overwhelmingly by atheists.
2. Most of the Sciforums atheists think that "religion" is bullshit. (Christianity in particular.)
3. They don't feel that there's any need for them to put any effort into studying what they already believe is bullshit. From their point of view, there aren't any 'facts of the matter' in religion for them to study.
4. Which they believe justifies the idea that there aren't any intellectual standards in the subject of religion.
Regarding the standard fare of atheist discourse dropping off at point no. 4, Tiassa has said the same thing. Something about a laxness in enforcing forum standards because (our) atheists weren't accustomed to rising to the mark.5. But... even if we agree (for the sake of argument) that there isn't any 'fact of the matter' about the content of revelation. there obviously are facts of the matter about how those ideas evolved over time and came to be what they are today.
6. So even ideas that particular people insist are bullshit can still be very much parts of intellectual history.
Please be specific.
I am having another cuppa before I leave.
Not sure I understand you.
I hope you are not suggesting my view that the universe is eternal is not a fact with supporting evidence readily available on the net.
I actually did some research and found it (like most ideas) has been thought of earlier..Aristotllle for one..he is ancient and real so the idea must be correct.
I hope you wont deny or reject the eternal universe and then go on to say God is eternal.
If you need creation you need to tell me how God was created.
Seriously how do you manage that concern ..you would have wondered I expect..any thoughts?
But please address my question re your take on the flood and the theory of evolution and perhaps the virtue of scientific method.
I am keen to know what you believe in an effort to understand your world view...then attack it☺
No ..you are ok..if you answer my questions but failure to do so will also help me understand you.
Too personal I expect... and perhaps fear of ridicule will hold you back ...maybe a realisation that your position is weak.
And also what do you think about the big bang and the age of the universe..the eternal universe that is.
I bet you will avoid my question care to take that bet.
Alex
I think he is stupid enough to think he is smart but not smart enough to understand he's stupid
Folk will demonstrate their ability or lack of with no commentary from onlookers....a theists is in a position where folk may think they are stupid but we need to understand they have often been brainwashed ... and what appears to be their stupidity is in fact just stupidity placed there by others.
As far as "our world of swimming pool turds" goes, things start getting well and truly fecal before we arrive at the macroscopic platform. We are constitutionally relegated to guesswork and uncertainty at every pensive moment of our metonymic lives. If we want to work soley and wholly by the addage of "seeing is believing", we will simply cease to work. Atheists tend to simply bluster about living an ideal life devoid of any namby pamby flexure, but stand bristled to the hilt in the very subjectivities they deem as sacrilegious. They proceed to do this complex waltz of hypocrisy as they move between atheism and agnosticism, according to whether they are on the offense or defense, meanwhile they individually and collectively tend to rot or flourish in accordance to their performances of crimes and kindnesses in accordance to the broader panorama of scriptural information about existing in this world.
As far as trying to kick over the apple cart by wrangling any historical or scientific discrepency from scripture (especially something like the bible which overs a treasure trove of such delights) that bears merit in direct accordance to the before mentioned panorama.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/que...fficulties-be-an-obstacle-to-christian-belief
Are you kicking the cart over or merely knocking mud off the wheel?
There is a certain victory that seems imminent to atheists in their attack on scriptures, for as long as they don't look at such works as drawing a particular, essential conclusion. Some theists even seem to capitalize on this weakness ... kind of like a grumpy sibling saying "don't you dare lay a finger on me" , which prompts the other to playfully wiggle their finger an inch in front of their nose.
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/our-real-motive-for-building-ark-encounter/
One has to wonder whether this fringe-dwelling fault-finding mentality is at the core of atheism or simply a low hanging fruit sort of skillset that lends itself to the world view of it. It could be some form of symbiosis, where there is an endeavour to extinguish the symptoms but wholeheartedly nourish and sustain the cause. Sisyphusatic might be a better description, but I don't think it's an actual word.