If religion made sense (Satan, pagan, atheists, history)
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.
You guys have fun with your well-established paradoxes and paradigms, but you actually can't because agnostics really exist.
There's a rather familiar sour-sneer slink away. But it's really:
" your well-established paradoxes and paradigms," grudging admission that we have at least answers and explanations which you sneer at as "paradoxes and paradigms" when we point out the well -known logical flaws in your case.
"but you actually can't because agnostics really exist" and there's a big flaw in that one, because it is saying..let me make this very clear.."because nobody is sure whether there is a god (name your own) or not, a natural explanation for Life, the Universe etc. is impossible".
That's what you are saying. Do you see the logical flaw or shall I underline and hyphenate it? All right, I'll do that. What you are actually saying is "Because you can't actually prove this natural origins hypothesis of yours, I am dismissing it as impossible, when I have no idea what's possible or not, hoping that the Faith-claim of an intelligent creator, which I believe in on Faith, will remain as the only explanation available".
Fester, that 'no other option' case went out with Darwin, since when Cosmology has closed the gap for God in cosmic origins, too, and you just have these two biggies - which are biggies, i admit - origins of DNA replication that we call life and origins of the uncreated nothing that could behave like matter/energy.
We are half -way to cracking those, and already you have nothing but an uncreated intelligence producing galaxies out of a hat. You don't even have the bad excuse of failure of imagination, because we put the alternative possible explanation in front of you, and you prefer to deny that it's there.
We call it Faith -based Denial.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-16-2018 at 10:46 AM..
Reason: more bloody typos.
Not faith as traditionally defined by the religious, anyway. I have faith that the sun will set at 4:51 PM today here in Buffalo, 'cause Google just told me it would. Religious faith, of which irrationality is an essential component, is of a different nature than 'justifiable faith in reasonably predicted outcomes' and could of course be discarded if 'religion made sense'
Correct. One of the first Theistic fallacy -favourites I learned about was equivocation. They just love that one. And using the conveniently interchangeable 'faith' and 'belief' (with the handy "Trust" for extra confusion), they can make it look like getting into your car without expecting that it will turn into a pile of nuclear waste takes as much faith as believing that an old book that is demonstrably wrong from page 1 to...the Epistles at least is All True.
Reasonable expectation based on experience (if not working understanding) is not the same as belief as reliably true in something without decent evidence, never mind a heap of evidence against.
Again?
OK. Creationists say even a not to complex protein forming by chance alone is basically impossible. As your god must be far, far, far more complex, then it must be even more improbable for it to simply just exist.
It can make an informed guess, and provide a plausible mechanism. While all that Creator-faith can do is point to an old book that is demonstrably wrong.
I don't think a creator (natural) is magic at all, but natural. I don't think a creator (intelligent) is magic. I think it is imaginary.
What is magic is your claim of how life started. God did some magic. No explanation. No process. **Poof** and it was there. Magic.
There is nothing 'Logical', let alone evidence -based, about Creatorfaith. It is at best an intuitive conclusion of what god -apologists call 'imperfect human faculties'. It is, at worst, the result of religious indoctrination.
And we get the broken record, again. Fingers in the ears, eyes squeezed shut, mouth open, chanting the same mantra. With of course the headslap 'Why can't they See what's so obvious to Me?" (Oh gosh, he's exasperated, he is so convinced that he is right, we must just suppose that we are merely obtuse and meekly accept what he says). There's a Book about you people, and we have read it.
More 'broken record. More fingers in ears, more eyes screwed shut. Yes it can. Plausibly and hypothetically. Godfaith can't. It just says 'magic'.
You offer zero evidence here, ZERO. And, I never mentioned scripture or a specific religion.
Ah! A reason for our existence. Doesn’t that beg for a creator/mover?
no, we don't know a grand reason. no, because we don't know doesn't mean we have to make one up either. well, past just enjoying the time we are here that is.
we do know we are here now. we do know we are in a system of life (the biosphere). we know the universe is more complex than just our biosphere. We do know that the universe created our biosphere.
we do not know the grand reason. Bt we make the next life form is two hundred years or less. And to be more precise , and more valid, the universe is actually is going to evolve using a protein.
that claim is more valid than "deny everything" and "my god only". now we just need the regular folks to step up against the fundy/milli mentals.
There's a rather familiar sour-sneer slink away. But it's really:
" your well-established paradoxes and paradigms," grudging admission that we have at least answers and explanations which you sneer at as "paradoxes and paradigms" when we point out the well -known logical flaws in your case.
"but you actually can't because agnostics really exist" and there's a big flaw in that one, because it is saying..let me make this very clear.."because nobody is sure whether there is a god (name your own) or not, a natural explanation for Life, the Universe etc. is impossible".
That's what you are saying. Do you see the logical flaw or shall I underline and hyphenate it? All right, I'll do that. What you are actually saying is "Because you can't actually prove this natural origins hypothesis of yours, I am dismissing it as impossible, when I have no idea what's possible or not, hoping that the Faith-claim of an intelligent creator, which I believe in on Faith, will remain as the only explanation available".
Fester, that 'no other option' case went out with Darwin, since when Cosmology has closed the gap for God in cosmic origins, too, and you just have these two biggies - which are biggies, i admit - origins of DNA replication that we call life and origins of the uncreated nothing that could behave like matter/energy.
We are half -way to cracking those, and already you have nothing but an uncreated intelligence producing galaxies out of a hat. You don't even have the bad excuse of failure of imagination, because we put the alternative possible explanation in front of you, and you prefer to deny that it's there.
We call it Faith -based Denial.
You do not want a discussion, you want adherents. That's why you ascribe motives to others in order to control the conversations.
I'm not going to fight to ask the questions I have and I shouldn't have to, if they are not welcome so be it.
There's a rather familiar sour-sneer slink away. But it's really:
" your well-established paradoxes and paradigms," grudging admission that we have at least answers and explanations which you sneer at as "paradoxes and paradigms" when we point out the well -known logical flaws in your case.
"but you actually can't because agnostics really exist" and there's a big flaw in that one, because it is saying..let me make this very clear.."because nobody is sure whether there is a god (name your own) or not, a natural explanation for Life, the Universe etc. is impossible".
That's what you are saying. Do you see the logical flaw or shall I underline and hyphenate it? All right, I'll do that. What you are actually saying is "Because you can't actually prove this natural origins hypothesis of yours, I am dismissing it as impossible, when I have no idea what's possible or not, hoping that the Faith-claim of an intelligent creator, which I believe in on Faith, will remain as the only explanation available".
Fester, that 'no other option' case went out with Darwin, since when Cosmology has closed the gap for God in cosmic origins, too, and you just have these two biggies - which are biggies, i admit - origins of DNA replication that we call life and origins of the uncreated nothing that could behave like matter/energy.
We are half -way to cracking those, and already you have nothing but an uncreated intelligence producing galaxies out of a hat. You don't even have the bad excuse of failure of imagination, because we put the alternative possible explanation in front of you, and you prefer to deny that it's there.
We call it Faith -based Denial.
yeah, faith based denial that we are best described as in a system of life?
what was it you said that day?
oh yeah, 'due to my atheism I have to answer no."
lmao, due to my "blind faith atheism" I have to deny valid science.
lmao, rotf lmao.
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.
But it's really:
I learned about was equivocation. They just love that one. And using the conveniently interchangeable 'faith' and 'belief' (with the handy "Trust" for extra confusion), they can make it look like getting into your car without expecting that it will turn into a pile of nuclear waste takes as much faith as believing that an old book that is demonstrably wrong from page 1 to...the Epistles at least is All True.
