It's well known that website pretty much lies in order to support a heavy bias/slant. Ever see their absurd article on radiocarbon dating? It's hilarious. I did answer it: "Because it's highly unlikely that she's been faking it all her life to the point of extremist obsession." I then addressed your tactic: Rather than providing reasonable evidence or support for your claims, you try to cast doubt on the other guy. By asking me how I know, when I cannot read her mind and cannot be certain whether she believes 100%, you're trying to cast unreasonable doubt-- thing is, it's highly unlikely that she was not following a strong belief in God. And then, I called that tactic "pathetic." Because it is dirty, absurd and pathetic.
Neverfly, James R used it one time, saying it was perfectly okay, and that although he didn't think it was a good site for gleaning scientific information they can be good for other stuff. Apart from that, you are lying like a real trooper. Why would she need to fake anything? What makes you think she ever believed in, or currently believes, in God? Please answer the question this time. I showed you more or less everything she said in that interview, and there was no evidence that she ever believed, or believes in God. So once again, please explain how you know she believed or believes in God? That means nothing in this thread. You are using her behaviour as a reason NOT to believe in God, meaning you think her behaviour was due to belief in God. Now you're trying to gloss over it by saying ''it is highly unlikely that she was NOT following a strong belief in God'', which is the same BS, worded differently. You're a liar. Forget it, you will never admit that you made a mistake, so I leave it to intelligent people to make up their own minds as to the true state of your position. jan.
Heh, if you say so... Yes, they're as honest as the Moon is young. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you suggesting that Allah is not God? Because that's the only way I can make sense of your repeated asking... When did you do this? Maybe my memory is going... Are you saying she did not believe in God? Yeah, well you smell funny. You have shown no mistake. What mistake are you referring to?
Faith is the natural position of the universe after Love, Perfection, and mighty Pass. God or not, you must faith.
I would not ask otherwise. This was not a facetious question. Why not simply provide me with a specific quote of where you have clarified this instead of seeming only to dodge the question? You cannot be serious. It can only be projection to accuse me of evasion while doing just that in failing to show the philosophical latitude you seem to infer of the golden rule. You still failed to answer. Would a future moral sense that penal systems are barbaric change whether murder was immoral? You seem to be conflating descriptive and normative moralities. The golden rule is cast in terms of normative morality, while the period cultural morality is strictly descriptive. You have so far failed to make your case that modern progress is distinctly at odds with the biblical golden rule, whereas: 27b "...‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” 28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” 29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. ... 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” -Luke 10How is securing rights for any minority not showing mercy (compassionate treatment of those in distress)? Again, you are conflating descriptive and normative moralities. You should know the difference if you wish to engage people on the subject. Again, learn the difference between descriptive and normative moralities. The golden rule to clearly cast in terms of a normative morality, where one is encouraged to consult one's own subjective experience. The period culture and laws are descriptive morals which are enforced by the society without regard to personal sense of morality, but this does not bar or hinder anyone of the period imagining himself in the shoes of another and judging actions accordingly. No, you are only conflating descriptive and normative moralities. This is the difference between laws you may not agree with and your personal sense of what is moral. It is naive to assume that these were ever necessarily the same thing.
Other people have to tell us, or indoctrinate us, in the belief, about God, although I have heard people mention how they thought of God on their own. I didn't know about God early in my life. A lot of it involves how smart a person is. I wonder if someone with an IQ of 50 would ever have a chance to think that God could exist without someone else bringing it up, and that speaks against the justice involved in the whole thing.
I always knew I was close to God. Every star child Jesus, or Satan understands Love from the very beginning and instantly knows the God. As tots we are indoctrinated into television, school, popular culture, church, state, and eventually masturbation, and sex with anyone but our in love diluting our connection to the Love, Perfection, and Pass who live forevermore.
Actually, no. If I were to trip over the aforementioned rock or chair, I would have a hard time proving they didn't exist, and one would be perfectly justified in asking me to do so had I stated I did not believe I had just tripped over a chair. Your argument, however, is for me to give reasons as to why I do not believe in something which has not been proven to exist, other than in some other people saying they believe it does. I mean seriously, the utter stupidity of what you've just said is mind boggling... not in the words themselves, but in what you're attempting to apply them to. What you would prefer is that when the mormons come knocking, we sit down with them and discuss opinions rather than closing the door in their silly faces. And like Wynn's example shows, those who do are probably more like Mr C.S Lewis than actually atheists. Either that, or they simply get a bit of a kick out of poking fun at stupidity.
and that would be because the statement would be made in a manner that is not dependent on any other over-arching principle that could make it lesser than being anything else other than "objective" ... or would it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You don't even have to so much as scratch the surface of an atheist for them to start them off about why god is unnecessary, how the idea of god came about etc etc and a host of other reasons So you don't call them "silly" or slam the door in their face because you have "reasons" to think what they are on about is fluff, eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
With reason, and faith destiny is known. I don't like the word "pre" destined. Drop the pre and it says the same thing, we are destined, and I know what it is. Perfection!!!
So lets get this right you are anthropomorphising the universe. Why! How do you know. And how do you get from this "What do you think is the default position." to an anthropomorphised universe, Again how do you know. So sorry still doesn't follow, try again. Here is my question again. with the post I was replying to, " I hope you can answer it with a little thought this time thanks.