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.
thanks for adding that shirina. seems that this sub-form is actually driving people away from the form itself because of the censorship. I just don't get it maybe we should lobby for an evolution verses God sub form where we can talk about God and science to our hearts content. Heck if people get upset because of debates on this stuff all they have to do is not read the thread, I guess self restraint is asking to much of people. lol
Be well shirina
I don't think it's too much of an issue. The believers can't use 'science' to prove God -say with ID, because I D has been debunked by science -and the law. The arguments that atheists use to 'jump all over' the First cause claims are logical, not scientific, ones because nobody really knows what the 'science' was before the Big Bang. The case for evolution has been validated again and again even though we get the same 'no transitionals' argument.
So all that we have lost is a lot of time -wasting arguments from Believers that have picked up some false claims to confirm the bias of the believers, and which can be easily knocked down by those who have troubled to acquaint themselves with the facts.
All that we have to do now is to demolish any 'well we could have debunked these atheists - but we weren't allowed to' canard. We won the debate long ago and can win it again. That applies to Mystic's rather infantile "Who made dem Laws, anyway?" argument, since he Denies the observed fact of emergent complexity, which has been proven to him several times.
And it's all pointless, anyway. The whole 'Goddunnit' argument is to provide a springboard for the leap of Faith to the god of the Bible.
First, you have to show why that god is the right one and none of the others. We had one poster trying to do that by posting a video by way of argument to debunk the Quran. Rather it debunked the Gospel -claims.
Discussion of the validity of the Bible is really what matters - not First cause, and that is Not banned. But you also know the Bible doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
Witnessed a UFO in summer of 72 NYC.
Paid no mind and almost forgot about it until I mentioned to my family some 46 years later.
without convincing them I've lost my mind. I was in for the biggest surprise when they remembered the
incident as well. Sent shivers up and down my spine. That's it. No big thing. Something exists.
We'll know when and if they ever come a knocking on our door. Until then, life as usual.
Don't expect aliens from other galaxies or God Particles lying deep in the frozen ice of Antarctica to pay your bills..................
I remember seeing my first UFO (2012 as i recall). My sister was there when we saw it. 'Glider?' she suggested. Why it would be gliding at night with a powerful searchlight that it switched off and on again was not clear. I won't go into the sheer Block on that matter by the whole family...which brought home to me that closed minded self -justification is the natural mindset that Humungs have instead of reasoning, which is not part of the curriculum.
I later found out that what i had seen was the 'Iridium satellite'. But if I had closed my mind, I would never have found that out and would be going through life with a mind closed to either one argument or the other.
Yes, indeed - there is closed -minded skepticism, and I am well aware of it. I try not to do it myself.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-20-2019 at 11:43 AM..
I tried ... I did. I really tried. I had conversations with some mods on the issue. But they can't do anything either because I think the rulings are coming from a higher tier of authority. It's not Mordant or MQ's fault, really - they're just doing their job.
LOL! "Seemingly" one of the few? Hehe, just kidding. I don't think either side should be censored.
However, I'd be careful in framing it in terms of: "Only Christians get shut down, but the atheists can say what they want!"
Because trust me, I've been shut down loads of times - probably hundreds. I was even banned a couple of times. Both sides get it. We just don't notice it. After all, we're really only concerned about the side we're on, right?
I doubt any of the mods will take anyone seriously if it sounds more like complaining about perceived favoritism than actual censorship. After all, I never saw any Christians complaining when any of my posts were edited or deleted, ya know?
Anyhow, "see" ya later.
Can't comment on some of the rules here or the reasons therefor because they predate me becoming a mod last July, but one thing that I've experienced several times already is getting emails accusing us of bias toward Christians and emails accusing us of bias toward atheists, and at least once I have received both accusations within a few hours of each other.
You would have a valid point if you and Mystic actually did use science.
You would recognize valid points if you actually had a deeper understanding of extant science on the frontier instead of a sophomoric knowledge that is just enough to be dangerous.
Can't comment on some of the rules here or the reasons therefor because they predate me becoming a mod last July, but one thing that I've experienced several times already is getting emails accusing us of bias toward Christians and emails accusing us of bias toward atheists, and at least once I have received both accusations within a few hours of each other.
The truly absurd prohibition about discussing a "Natural" God instead of the "supernatural" one in a Religion and Spirituality forum is simply the product of frustration over atheist inability to reason it away. They demand the default be "No God" exists until it can be proven or shown by more evidence than already exists in our knowledge of reality. Clearly, the powers that be side with that view which is beyond preposterous for a Religion and Spirituality forum.
You would recognize valid points if you actually had a deeper understanding of extant science on the frontier instead of a sophomoric knowledge that is just enough to be dangerous.
IOW, scientific explanations that do not exist yet and that you hope will validate your synopsis, should they ever arise.
It's my assumption/contention/belief that it will prove just the opposite.
That "assumption/contention/belief" is in no way dangerous and, in fact, would be much more beneficial to mankind.
You would recognize valid points if you actually had a deeper understanding of extant science on the frontier instead of a sophomoric knowledge that is just enough to be dangerous.
Yes, your usual need to invent excuses while being arrogant at the same time.
Please do not talk down to me when you use creationist arguments.
Yes, your usual need to invent excuses while being arrogant at the same time.
Please do not talk down to me when you use creationist arguments.
I do NOT use Creationist arguments but you seem only able to see and respond to them instead of my actual arguments.
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.
