Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I followed the link to the page about evolution myths. It's not surprising that evolution wasn't discussed at all. Too bad."
??? The entire series of articles pertains to evolution.
"I thought we established that it is you that believes in eternal matter...eternal anything, and for me, the jury is still out."
You obviously choose to obfuscate. I see this as dishonesty. Why bring up the topic of Abiogenesis if you didn't see it as a reasonable explanation for our existence?
"The differences between looking into abiogenesis vs god creation is that the hypotheses offered IRT abiogenesis gives us something substantial to consider (actual matter i.e., compounds, elements, conditions, etc) where god creation, wearing its finest suit, only offers magic dust as variable as any person considering it."
This sounds intelligent coming from someone asserting the idea of the eternal existence of the magic BB.
"I'm not sure how this points to god creation. If anything, it's a hallmark of evolution, which the link you provide confuses with abiogenesis."
Hey, I didn't knock your video.
"If this is the case, than this being is severely flawed. And this contradicts Christian doctrine at least."
"I followed the link to the page about evolution myths. It's not surprising that evolution wasn't discussed at all. Too bad."
??? The entire series of articles pertains to evolution.
I visited the evolution section. I read 3 articles...no, they were summary whacked opinion pieces. I didn't see any science, any research, and no in depth discussion about evolution. Maybe you can direct me to what you're talking about.
Quote:
You obviously choose to obfuscate. I see this as dishonesty. Why bring up the topic of Abiogenesis if you didn't see it as a reasonable explanation for our existence?
Abiogenesis does not suggest eternal matter. Maybe you should inform yourself about the subject matter before you go accusing anyone of dishonesty. Frankly, you come off as very dishonest and at this point I'm suspecting that your finger pointing is really aimed at yourself.
Quote:
This sounds intelligent coming from someone asserting the idea of the eternal existence of the magic BB.
I have never asserted eternal anything. That's your bag. You know this. I have clearly stated that I cannot comprehend eternal.
Quote:
"I'm not sure how this points to god creation. If anything, it's a hallmark of evolution, which the link you provide confuses with abiogenesis."
Hey, I didn't knock your video.
I didn't quote a video, I responded to your post.
Quote:
How so?
Our essence, this dependent state as you call it, is flawed up the wazoo. If this is the mini-me of a deity, than much is left to be desired.
Religious people may have realized irrationality of their closed-minded blind-faith, and are looking for guilty partnership, and therefore they try to portrait atheism as the same as any other religions.
The simple answer is: if one realizes religion is bad thing, then stop doing it yourself, and you most definitely got away from the bad thing.
The serious tone gives me the impression that you're having a bad day
"I visited the evolution section. I read 3 articles...no, they were summary whacked opinion pieces. I didn't see any science, any research, and no in depth discussion about evolution."
Yeah, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.
"Abiogenesis does not suggest eternal matter. Maybe you should inform yourself about the subject matter before you go accusing anyone of dishonesty. Frankly, you come off as very dishonest and at this point I'm suspecting that your finger pointing is really aimed at yourself."
My alluding to what I see as dishonesty on your part was clearly explained and in response to your obfuscation of the issue at hand. You say that I "come off as very dishonest" but fail to explain why or how. If I wanted to simply hurl insults without provocation it would be easy enough to do.
As far as being informed of the subject matter, you can have no idea at this point as to how informed/uniformed I am. This statment I think illustrates arrogance on your part.
"I have never asserted eternal anything. That's your bag. You know this. I have clearly stated that I cannot comprehend eternal."
Sure, sure, OK. We'll just forget all about what you posted.
"Our essence, this dependent state as you call it, is flawed up the wazoo. If this is the mini-me of a deity, than much is left to be desired."
Our existence is contingent. Without food, we die. Without air, we die. Without water, we die. What in the world does any of that have to do with a "mini-me of a deity?"
The serious tone gives me the impression that you're having a bad day
I'm tired of your charging my honesty (personal attacks). It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and poor attempts to avoid discussion by attacking people is just lame. Grow up.
Quote:
As far as being informed of the subject matter, you can have no idea at this point as to how informed/uniformed I am. This statment I think illustrates arrogance on your part.
In all these pages you really haven't said anything. You haven't presented any type of an argument. Who knows what you're thinking or what you know or what your point is. I don't think you know either.
Quote:
Sure, sure, OK. We'll just forget all about what you posted.
You have one poor memory. You can easily go back and read my posts to see that you are wrong.
Quote:
Our existence is contingent. Without food, we die. Without air, we die. Without water, we die. What in the world does any of that have to do with a "mini-me of a deity?"
Hey, you're the one lending the similar essence blah, whatever the heck that is. At this point, I need a mumbo jumbo translator.
I've never asserted that they are. I basically asserted that the choice to believe in the veracity of speculation is by faith. If I was not articulate enough, I apologize.
The "choice to believe in the veracity of speculation"? No, I don't have faith in speculation, sorry. It's an unreliable source of knowledge, which is sort of the point here.
Quote:
"A guess includes doubt, otherwise it's not a guess. Faith is being completely sure, which means it's not a guess. It may or may not be correct, but to the person with faith, there is no question, it is correct; otherwise it is not true faith."
Sorry, but that is complete hogwash. It is not logically possible to have faith without doubt. Think about it.
"I think you would be insulting your own faith by comparing it to thetentative acceptance of the best scientific explanations so far."
No, there is nothing insulting to my own faith. I'm trying to call it the way I see it. In my opinion, there is nothing at all mystical or deeply spiritual about faith . However, I understand that many who consider themselves to be deeply spiritual would probably disagree.
"Many people including myself are doubtful of unproven things, and are flexible enough to change our minds in light of evidence and testing."
You seem to assert that I lack such flexibility. What have I stated/posted that would give you such an impression?
"Doubt and flexibility are excluded by faith, yet are two things that are vital for advancement in knowledge. If you have the same doubt and flexibility in your belief in God, then you do not have faith."
Faith can and indeed should be REASONED faith. Faith that includes logic and weighing of available evidence. However, if one chooses to place their BLIND faith in truth, they are still on par with those placing reasonable faith in that same truth.
I think it was many pages ago someone said this was a pointless semantics argument. I thought I explained it well enough. Faith is being completely sure. If you think it's impossible to have faith without doubt, then fine, it's impossible to have complete faith. That doesn't change the word just because it's impossible to achieve (which I disagree that it's impossible to achieve, first you have to prove that it is, but that's irrelevant here).
If you want to continue disputing the definition of faith, take it up with Merriam-Webster.
I think everyone looks past objects, wonders what the objects are and see's shadows from them and wonders what's in the shadows... such as spirits and ghosts. People naturally think like this, and they like it. People all have a natural urge for things unseen, things not physical. So yeah, everyone is religious. Most people probably enjoy the wonder that comes from the unknown.
Seems like this topic of "Are we all religious ?" gotten way off track here. It's not really a matter of any specific conventional god/diety foundation. I think religious belief can be summed up as anything and also include nothing. Though many will disagree with the value of this source, but it all started here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genisis 3:4-6 (MB)
"The Serpent told the woman, "You won't die. God knows from the moment that you eat from that tree, you'll see what's really going on. You'll be just like God, knowing everything, ranging all the way from good to evil."
"When the woman saw that the tree looked like good eating, and realized what she'd get out of it, she'd know everything! . . . "
Again, a person can be a belief unto themselves, their own diety if you will, even looking for believers in their own philosophical outlook on life. They can establish for themselves their own right and wrong and live life as they personally see fit. As a god, they don't have to believe anything since they themselves can only be believed or disbelieved. They could feel complete within themselves as the God who is said to have authored the above quoted Bible is described therein.
In the end, it really does'nt matter at this time as long as this time is allowed to continue.
"The "choice to believe in the veracity of speculation"? No, I don't have faith in speculation, sorry. It's an unreliable source of knowledge, which is sort of the point here."
As I pointed out to your buddy, the existence of matter means that there is a cause. This point was disputed by neither of you. That leaves only a few possible alternatives:
Self created matter.
Self existing eternal matter.
Matter created by a self existent, transcendent and eternal being.
If you know of any more, please enlighten me.
I would also assert that one's choice to proceed with a particular world view does not necessarily have to be cogent or immediately cerebral. However, the choice to adopt a specific world view indicates a "firm belief" in that chosen view. We proceed in our world view with a choice of acceptance or non-acceptance of the existence of a transcendent eternal being. It's either one or the other no matter which way you try to spin it.
"If you think it's impossible to have faith without doubt, then fine, it's impossible to have complete faith."
Gosh, is this a confession!
"If you want to continue disputing the definition of faith, take it up withMerriam-Webster."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
