Discussion in 'Religion' started by billvon, Aug 30, 2018.
You think you can say anything & it is up to others to show you wrong.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If you want to defy even rudimentary knowledge, its more a case of you simply saying anything.
It's not clear how pointing out rudimentary knowledge is perpetual sidestepping.
You haven't used it at all! You know, comparing historical facts with legend (myth).
Theism is your story, learn how to tell it believably. Scientific facts would help a great deal in that.
I'm not the one scrambling for a scientific authority for cosmogony, nor am I wiggling my hands to avoid dealing with 500-1500 years of history.
Once again, if you have something to ssy about the connection between trinitarianism and egyptian polytheism, it's not apparent.
No surprise that something simple is not clear to you or that you pretend such.
Rudimentary knowledge is pretty simple.
I have nothing to say about that. What gave you the impression I was interested in that useless bit of information. I don't want to know about the history of religion, I couldn't care less.
No matter what logic is used, the premise of a sentient and motivated supreme being is just false (wrong), IMO.
My point is that such a "being" is not required for a cosmic evolutionary process and that physics eventually will solve the mystery, which IMO lies in a pseudo-intelligent, mathematical evolutionary process from the "very subtle" to "gross expression in reality".
And that ain't woo!..............Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Whatever that means in your dreamworld.
The part where you were critical of rudimentary ideas about history.
What has history to do with occurrence of natural phenomena, other than to identify a Darwinian evolutionary process, without any evidence of intentional creation.
We are just (lucky) varietal evolutionary accidents of nature. Nothing divine, it is all in the maths.
You mean religious history of course. But then who can keep up with religious history to begin with? Buy 5 Bibles and I bet 3 will not be alike. I know, I have three bibles, all different.
It's a mess, let's just face it.
There are three biblical accounts of loafs and fishes, each describing the story with different numerical facts. Get it straight, before you even begin to speak about rudimentary science, which, btw. does not subscribe to the notion of a sentient creator.
Today many people die by the application of Holy Scripture and that's bad.
Today many people live by the application of Science and that's good.
Now if only we could lick the mathematical problems posed by the universal constant of the exponential function, we'd have the whole thing solved.
Just a wild guess.
So you're going to stick with your "I'm right, you're wrong, get an education" approach? You've had plenty of opportunity to actually provide something that counters what was stated in this regard, but rather than do so you've simply reiterated that they're wrong and need an education. Fair enough. It's clearly not a discussion you're after, then, is it? So what is it you're after here?
A discussion that doesn't violate or require the radical suspension of rudimentary history, perhaps?
That's the ideal, sure, but if you spot something that does go against what you consider to be rudimentary history then, and here's just me throwing out, you know, a crazy idea, would it not be better to highlight what you see as the violation in a manner conducive to actual discussion, rather than simply telling them (words to the effect) that they are wrong and should get an education?
But hey, I guess someone implying they have such an education is no guarantee that they have can behave with decency, is it.
I've already pointed it out : ignoring at least 1000 years of history, especially the 500 or so that historians have a field day with when explaining the origins of trinitarianism.
You honestly think that's being helpful, and conducive to further discussion on the matter? You don't see how what you are pointing out is nothing more than "you clearly aren't educated on the matter"?
You have said that they are ignoring at least 1,000 years of history... so what are they ignoring, specifically, that counters what they previously said? You simply telling them that they are ignoring it doesn't actually say what it is that they are missing that would negate, refute, rebut, what they previously said. Don't you see that?
And rudimentary history will prove that atheists do not really exist?
And science has proven atheists do not really exist?
And religion has never been at war with atheism?
And no one has ever died at the hands of religious zealots?
Rudimentary history? The bible is rudimentary history. It's really old and rudimentary.
Separate names with a comma.