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 hate giving in, but at I guess at some point we can't keep stooping to the militant/fundy
I was asked many time to post what I thought the traits of a fundamentalist were. I stop answering when it became clear the poster didn't really care. I would answer the poster. They wouldn't respond then would come back at a later date ask me again and I would answer. Finally I stopped answering.
Only seeing one side of a situation
black/white thinking
my way or highway
yes or no only
obsessive
shift blame
linear thinking
avoid creative solutions
dehumanization
very literal in words.
I said what would a person with these traits look like expressing atheism.
I'm sure that's extraordinarily clever and deep, and I'm just dull of wits after a curry, cider and pipe -up after a stint battling brambles in the garden, but would someone explain to me what the point was there?
Yes. Like it or not, study, discovery and verification has been the name of the game from the beginning. Up until then any guesswork was accepted and Truth and Fact and science is what has (since Copernicus) stood up pretty well and the speculative guesswork has failed.
If this centralised source that instructs us as to how things are appeals to you less than sucking up the claims of those who have verified nothing at all, and sticking the fingers in the ears when verified facts contradicts those claims - never mind different claims, equally not verified...well, that's up to you.
But you don't do that at all, do you? Like all those other venomfangs who sneer at at and dismiss science as a bunch on kids playing in a sandbox and ignoring the huge amount of fantasy -land, you he and the others who appeal to Unknowns as evidence, rely on science every day of your unthankful lives.
Whether or not God is exist is not limited to personal preferences and wall-text. You can limit the discussions but not the wonderment.
Holy crap, I'm sure glad that I didn't waste the time to read all 451 pages. IWMN's argument falls flat right at the beginning, and then deteriorates further when he/she attempts to force a stipulation that because something cannot be currently explained, it must therefore be 'supernatural'...and then I skip to the last page of utter rubbish.
Small wonder that I now peep in here only occasionally.
That's cheating! You've got to read all 451 pages to fully appreciate the extent of the deterioration or before you can declare rubbish. Get in line pal! No cuts.
Based on that, you should just leave, so as to be spared further nothingness. I happen to think there is much useful discussion. We are asking people to state what they believe, but more importantly, what evidence informs those beliefs. Most of the time, we get “it’s true because it’s in the book that says it’s true”. Or we get “it’s true for me because of “personal experience” or “look at the trees”. In either case, nothing close to meeting any standard of evidential warrant is presented, and we dispense with the claim. What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Lots of good stuff on this thread!
Most people in this forum know how to use the ignore feature. I don't for reasons previously explained but that's clearly and obviously an option. What others have yet to figure out, however, is how to move from a thread they don't like to a thread they prefer. That sort of thing for some is a real challenge for reasons I've never quite been able to understand...
Correct, because they are two different things. If only certain theists understood this.
Some definitions of God are. Some Christians define their god out of existence.
Its worse, the bible attempts tp prove God by offering up miracles , yet Thomas makes no mention of Jesus throwing lightning bolts or raising dead people. If Jesus was who I think he was and did what I think he really did then miracles are a cheap stunt.
Its worse, the bible attempts tp prove God by offering up miracles , yet Thomas makes no mention of Jesus throwing lightning bolts or raising dead people. If Jesus was who I think he was and did what I think he really did then miracles are a cheap stunt.
Pardon me but, which of the versions are being examined and which are eliminated as apocryphal?
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 you don't do that at all, do you? Like all those other venomfangs who sneer at at and dismiss science as a bunch on kids playing in a sandbox and ignoring the huge amount of fantasy -land, you he and the others who appeal to Unknowns as evidence, rely on science every day of your unthankful lives.