Struggling with religious belief (dinosaur, souls, myth, church)

[OzzyRules]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

You think there's been a change is the pattern of your posts?

I don't know, but I do know this: If someone on the internet says something wrong, it's my duty to correct them.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

I don't know, but I do know this: If someone on the internet says something wrong, it's my duty to correct them.

That's how most of us feel.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

And the best part is that you don't need to worry about religious revivals occurring again, because those must be a thing of the past. Even the post-Enlightenment ones.

I seem to recall that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

[khminh]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

So what?

If it talks like a Christian, it will walk like one.
Some habits die hard.

[khminh]

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

Thanks. If you don’t believe in a creator god, how do you explain the origin of the universe? Do you believe the entire universe (time, space and matter) originated from nothing, by chance?


(BTW, when I use the term ‘worldview’ I’m referring to one’s view of reality, which includes one’s perspective on life’s big questions about origins, meaning, morality, truth, life after death, etc.)

I don't have to. I let things be.


I don't know.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

The premise that you can describe, in terms of physics, the whole function of a human being… including knowledge and consciousness... is unreasonable. Knowledge and consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms.

The usual creationist question begging that ignores the findings of neuroscience.

Also knowledge and consciousness cannot be accounted for Christianity, which can only assert your god did it, which explains nothing.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew

In your comment, above, you ignore that I was referring to “the whole function of a human being” (not computers) and you don’t even address the topic of consciousness. How convenient.

You often point out when TRANS runs from difficult questions, but you do the same thing. You run away from the fundamental question of origins because it challenges your ‘standard model’. How convenient.

Another irony meter destroyed.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Conflating knowledge and information with raw data just confuses the issue and obscures the point IWMN is trying to make, Arach. Knowledge and information ONLY exist in consciousness. The raw data can be arranged and stored in physical machines or manifestations but the actual knowledge and information, per se, require consciousness.

Did you know that people who buy diapers are also more likely to buy beer at supermarkets? This information was in data collected but not observed by conscious beings until it was discovered by an unconscious computer.

Your shallow understanding of information is amusing.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

What's really sad is that you are so opposed to anyone sharing good or inspiring testimonies.

And if we posted a video of a Christian becoming an atheist, you would pretend it is not a good or inspiring testimony.

What is sad is that you do not understand posting one video is ignoring all the other Christianity to X conversion videos.

[Frihed89]

There are many Lutheran brands in the US. I believe that the one that is closest to the current National Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).