Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Aug 31, 2018.
And can you explain the last two sentences?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Then demonstrate the difference.
Unless you are a moron, it should be obvious. Alternatively, on the off chance you are a genius, the situation would require you to explain why they are the same.
If you don't "ask yourself" these q's, you are stuffed.
We have a natural propensity to seek patterns, many of which aren't true. Thus the natural propensity toward something is no indication of the truth of it.
Why the **** do you make everything so difficult?? As said, I'm seeking clarification of what you said: do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
Do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
No, I'm not playing silly beggars.
First show me in the article you posted previously where it concludes that theism is natural according to this definition of "natural". Otherwise you're simply equivocating.
Something is necessarily true if it can not possibly be false.
So you believe. If you consider scriptures to be evidence of God, because you believe scriptures weren't the invention of men, what evidence do you have to support that notion?
It has everything to do with this thread. If you believe scriptures to be evidence of God, I am trying to see on what basis you draw the line between one collection of written records and another. If there is no line then you would believe that "Lord of the Rings" would be evidence of orcs and elves, for example.
So, if I pray that a loved one, lying in coma in a hospital bed didn't die or be brain dead but that's what pretty much happens, it's because God "stuffed" me?
Do you have any actual feelings and knowledge to know that the stupid article you posted would breed nothing but contempt?
And why are you answering a question I posed to, Jan Ardena?
It's not immediately obvious how they are different. Both are characters of legend with magical qualities , and the only evidence that they did exist is anecdotal.
I don't see it like that. Try again.
Who said theism is a propensity?
There's nothing difficult about what I said. Move on.
No. Answer the question.
If it's true, it's true. No need for ''necessary.
Man is incapable of writing scripture, which is why there has been no new scriptures written, period.
Not biting. Bye.
Lol. Now, that's sheer desperation piled on top of sheer denial.
Scriptures reads like it was written by first year poli-sci students on drugs. There's far better written material than Scriptures, Jan. Perhaps, it's the only book you've read? Or, have you even read it?
You may not see it like that, but it is a fact. Google pareidolia.
It is part of the human impulse to seek patterns and cause/effect where there is none.
And yet man did write all the scripture. And new scripture is being written all the time. The Book of Mormon was written in 1830, for example.
Whether you see it like that or not doesn't stop it being true, Jan. And just because you don't see it like that doesn't mean others have to try again. Otherwise you're not discussing, you're simply waiting for people to agree with you.
Oh, apologies. There was me thinking that you were the one claiming that belief in God is a natural tendency?
Why on earth won't you provide the simple clarification that I'm looking for, Jan? Why are you choosing to be rather obnoxious about it? Do you consider "everything" to be evidence of God?
Until you can do what I asked, your question is irrelevant due to your equivocation.
Okay, then if it helps you, omit the word "necessarily"... to wit: a propensity to hold certain types of belief does not mean those beliefs are true.
Well, that may be a belief you hold, but what evidence do you have for it?
It's a relatively simple question, Jan. Why won't you answer? Is it because you are beginning to recognise that your trail of "evidence" is circular, perhaps? And that your arguments all rely on question-begging? If not, what is it that's stopping you from answering?
It was the former.
(You make basic errors, such as in your misrepresentations of Darwinian evolution)
But: if you continued to explore what the world as "an effect of God" must mean, you would end up losing the Abrahamic deity and finding yourself atheist.
You won't, of course - that was just a phrase designed to avoid the accountability of a God projected from human creativity - but that refusal has effects: you live in bad faith from then on.
Which possibly brings us closer to an explanation for the nature of the posting by overt Abrahamic theists on science forums.
You did. You started an entire thread on that basis.
Scientology. Mormonism. The various revisions of the Bible.
We have beer recipes older than the Quran.
All the scriptures were new when first written by the men who first wrote them - most of them within the last three thousand years. The Great Pyramid was an ancient relic of a bygone day, a ruin without its casing, when the Bhagavad Gita was written.
Of course not. It's perfectly ordinary misrepresentations and bad faith dodges and elementary mistakes by an overt Abrahamic theist on a science forum.
The difficulty is in your (including their) behavior - your insistence on it, posting it on science forums, employing it as a basis for attacking science as a human endeavor and scientists personally for engaging in it.
2000 years of acting all serious about it makes no difference whatsoever. I'll believe in leprachauns and Jesus when I see one.
There is a big difference between being familiar with 2000 years of history and 20 minutes of browsing on an atheist hate site.
According to the article, its more a case of being stuffed by one's own shortcomings. Or to say it another way, one who can't be stuffed, gets stuffed.
Ask a contemptuous question, get a contemptuous answer. In many cases, attitude is practically everything.
Given that it so happened that we gave similar answers (although technically my answer came from google), its not clear why that alone is grounds for your contempt.
As they all do.
With your talk of the buddhist God Brahma and the connection between ancient Egyptian polytheism and christianity, you should try it occassionally.
Man cannot fart therefore all farts are evidence of gods.
Separate names with a comma.