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.
Hi Harry i am not making an argument that they do not believe in creation because thats a given with an intelligence being behind it all. I am only pointing out they should not be lumped in with yec or theistic evolution because unlike those two they do not state who or what the intelligence us
Stop wasting out time with your piddling fiddling. It is a pseudo -idiocy that is just more denialist cheek of those with no better argument.
We know that broadly 'Creationism' can be taken as any belief that the universe was created by intention. This it can be said to be Intelligently designed as well. But specifically ID refers to the claim that this belief can be scientifically demonstrated, and 'Creationism' we know refers to a Bible -literalist belief that the whole thing was done more or less as in Genesis, in 6 (earth) days (1).
You know this well enough and you are simply trying to score a cheap, irrelevant and pointless point to cover your running away - from me, at leat, if not the others.
(1) this is why (just as I refer to 'Good' evidence rather than 'evidence - since Mystic tried to pass off 'bad' evidence as still 'evidence') I try to call 'Creationism' "YE Creationism" (or Genesis - literalist,as it really is (2) in order to block dishonest sentic fiddled sch as you tried to pull here.
(2) but that points up the other Fundamentalist swindle - the claim that one can accept evolution, or be a Christian, but not both, when the claim is 'One can accept evolution or believe that genesis is literally true, but not both". That would work. The other is a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
You must be getting senile in your old age trans, I did not drag you into anything. I was speaking with Harry and YOU butted into the conversation, got schooled, and are now trying to wiggle out by trying to push it back on Harry to answer then showed your dishonesty by trying to say I am the one who lacks comprehension, poor think skills.
What do I care if he is an atheist or not trans? I am not the one with the hang up, I don't care if one is an atheist or a Christian but it is obvious that you do have that hang up.
That you cannot understand what I say or arach say could be because of your low comprehension skills. I don't know whether they have classes for that or not trans but it is something you really should look into.
bye
Thank you for totally discrediting yourself.
Let's start at the end. You Flounce trying to get the last word.
You prove me right by showing that you don't casre whether an Ally is a theist or an atheist - so long as they are bashing atheism.
You began with abuse which is no more than that with a feeble attempt to take a true (but irrelevant) point that you were talking to Harry (though as I recall I skipped over Harry's part and did my own, but in any case,you do not get to tell us what we do or do not respond to).
In other words, you have no credibility left and we have already been warned off this topic.
Get back on track or get out before you get us all banned.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-10-2020 at 08:26 AM..
"I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”
Quote by Zhuangzi:
But not Dreams as we know them. They can hardly be real. But a 'Dream' in the sense of a continued consciousness (On Mystic's thread which became the Qualia debate, Our Resident MA in Philosophy (Gaylenwoof) thought that a human consciousness existing after death with no corpus to hold it together was a logical impossibility.
I thought that. since 'consciousness' has to be energy acting as it did in the brain (1) it was not logically impossible that an individual consciousness could survive as a brain pattern in 'space' without anything to hold it together but itself.
(1) unless one proposes that we are part of the Cosmic mind and out individually will dissipate in the whole after death - which ain't so far from the materialist view, except that we don't believe it is intelligent, until someone makes a valid case for that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-10-2020 at 08:42 AM..
I have a feeling, it will be NOTHING EVEN close to what anyone imagines it will be like!!
The main reason I believe this is, there is just no way to even speculate about what an existence in a 'realm' without time, would feel like...Our earthly lives, and everything in it, revolves around TIME...this is the only type of existence we know and are familiar with!
I hear other people talking about how LONG an 'eternity' will be...but in reality, it wont feel like anything we know, it wont feel like 2 trillion years, or 2 milliseconds...it will be something completely different.
Well arach I cant speak for all atheist on the something more ( which I agree more and more science is pointing to) but most of the atheists I have met on this forum obviously do have a problem with the something more. I would like to think they are not all militant fundamentalist but I could be wrong on that account. Heck some of them cant even understand what your talking about, yet it is plain as day to me, go figure.
Good for you to be able to understand something like something more, but as long as I've been reading AA's version of what it means, on some days I can easily agree. Other days not so much. All depends on what anyone may decide to understand it to be one way or another. Science continues to reveal more and more truths to us over time, so in that respect, there is always something more going on we may not yet fully understand. Who can argue with that?
Try to define that something more beyond what we've yet been able to determine or establish as truth, and I'm not so inclined, other than for entertainment value perhaps.
I have a feeling, it will be NOTHING EVEN close to what anyone imagines it will be like!!
The main reason I believe this is, there is just no way to even speculate about what an existence in a 'realm' without time, would feel like...Our earthly lives, and everything in it, revolves around TIME...this is the only type of existence we know and are familiar with!
I hear other people talking about how LONG an 'eternity' will be...but in reality, it wont feel like anything we know, it wont feel like 2 trillion years, or 2 milliseconds...it will be something completely different.
Trying to imagine non-existence is difficult for most of us to imagine I think, but it still seems to be the more likely scenario given all the clues available to us to speculate about such a thing. That difficulty is no doubt part of what fuels all the more "romantic" versions of what to expect after death. Ultimately, we humans tend to be hopeless romantics about such things...
Stop wasting out time with your piddling fiddling. It is a pseudo -idiocy that is just more denialist cheek of those with no better argument.
We know that broadly 'Creationism' can be taken as any belief that the universe was created by intention. This it can be said to be Intelligently designed as well. But specifically ID refers to the claim that this belief can be scientifically demonstrated, and 'Creationism' we know refers to a Bible -literalist belief that the whole thing was done more or less as in Genesis, in 6 (earth) days (1).
You know this well enough and you are simply trying to score a cheap, irrelevant and pointless point to cover your running away - from me, at leat, if not the others.
(1) this is why (just as I refer to 'Good' evidence rather than 'evidence - since Mystic tried to pass off 'bad' evidence as still 'evidence') I try to call 'Creationism' "YE Creationism" (or Genesis - literalist,as it really is (2) in order to block dishonest sentic fiddled sch as you tried to pull here.
(2) but that points up the other Fundamentalist swindle - the claim that one can accept evolution, or be a Christian, but not both, when the claim is 'One can accept evolution or believe that genesis is literally true, but not both". That would work. The other is a lie.
Thank you for totally discrediting yourself.
Let's start at the end. You Flounce trying to get the last word.
You prove me right by showing that you don't casre whether an Ally is a theist or an atheist - so long as they are bashing atheism.
You began with abuse which is no more than that with a feeble attempt to take a true (but irrelevant) point that you were talking to Harry (though as I recall I skipped over Harry's part and did my own, but in any case,you do not get to tell us what we do or do not respond to).
In other words, you have no credibility left and we have already been warned off this topic.
Get back on track or get out before you get us all banned.
Lol you are showing you ignorance of id once again. They do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation. So thinks for proving my point
Whats the matter trans? Dont like receiving what you dish out. You are the biggest bully here and just like a bully you cant handle a taste of your own medicine.
And everyone can see that you are being deceitful by trying to dig yourself out of the pickle of butting into a conversation and then telling everyone i dragged you into it. So whose credibility is it again that is in question. Lmao
Good for you to be able to understand something like something more, but as long as I've been reading AA's version of what it means, on some days I can easily agree. Other days not so much. All depends on what anyone may decide to understand it to be one way or another. Science continues to reveal more and more truths to us over time, so in that respect, there is always something more going on we may not yet fully understand. Who can argue with that?
Try to define that something more beyond what we've yet been able to determine or establish as truth, and I'm not so inclined, other than for entertainment value perhaps.
Arach is a little cryptic at times but he has explained his view more then once and should not have to repeat it everytime he posts. It might be better for new people to the forum if he did but for those of us who have been around for awhile we should have no problem understanding what he is saying. And the new people can always ask him to elaborate and he would be more then willing to do so
also pneuma, there are a ton of creation stories. list them and come up with an order. ID may incompass a few of them. To tell ya truth I don't even look at ID for the reasons you stated. I always ask "what ID?"
so lets list this ID ... I limit it to earth because the universe is unknown.
what started the Earth and indeed created man?
deity
living universe
non living universe
chance (as non trained people use the word, not how its use by trained people"
nothing
anti-god
what one makes the most sense? in terms of types of ID?
so do most people ... with some minor adjustments to specifics. its really over at that point for most reasonable people.
rational people then start to talk about over laps.
for example. I say the biosphere matches life more than non life.
How would you being in a "lining system" make you thinks its a deity thing when it could actually be a living system? and why is that so offensive to some believers?
Lol you are showing you ignorance of id once again. They do not believe in a literal 6 days of creation. So thinks for proving my point
Whats the matter trans? Dont like receiving what you dish out. You are the biggest bully here and just like a bully you cant handle a taste of your own medicine.
And everyone can see that you are being deceitful by trying to dig yourself out of the pickle of butting into a conversation and then telling everyone i dragged you into it. So whose credibility is it again that is in question. Lmao
Thank you You have utterly done the last of your credibility by disregarding what I was saying
" 'Creationism' we know refers to a Bible -literalist belief that the whole thing was done more or less as in Genesis, in 6 (earth) days "
This is not the Id that more broadly believes in a creator but not the 'Bible -literalism' that I specifically associate with 'Creationism' as we usually know it. You have screwed up royally and would have done better to scuttle away as you proposed doing. I hardly need comment on the bluster and jeering that does neither you nor your religion very much credit.
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.
You have utterly done the last of your credibility by disregarding what I was saying
