 |
That's a personal weakness on your part that has nothing to do with religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
The people who don't do any good at all are evenly distributed amongst the religious and non-religious, you may be too blind to see it. Since they are many gods that you do not believe in then you are also a non-believer, remember that.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So, you don't mind debating after all.
The weakness has nothing to do with religion, I'd have to agree.. But for me, religion was the remedy to that weakness. That's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
That sounds like a subjective assertion. Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim, otherwise I'll have to chalk it up to wishful thinking.Quote:
The people who don't do any good at all are evenly distributed amongst the religious and non-religious,
No, I think my eyes are wide open to distinguish between an opinion and a statement of fact. That statement shows all the qualities of an opinion.Quote:
you may be too blind to see it.
?? If there was a point there it went over my head. But as they say on the playground, what's good for the gander is good for the goose. I'll play along.Quote:
Since they are many gods that you do not believe in then you are also a non-believer, remember that.
And since there are many things in which you believe, you are also a believer. Remember that.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Oh, you mean like you did here:Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Please provide quantitative data to substantiate your claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Absolutely! I believe in a lot of things, just not an unseen being in the clouds.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Didn't get it, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You kind of have to read the entire message NK. Don't just read little snippets here and there. Read what both parties have said.
As for my response which you've quoted, its called "irony".
# sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a ...
# incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated"
# a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected and what occurs
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Credendovidis had said, and I quote:
Since he literally pommels everyone with this idea that only he is objective:Quote:
With that I agree. But note that the believer seems to need religion to do good, while the non-believer does that automatically without any incentive.
I thought I'd give him a taste of the same type of evidence he actually produces.Quote:
At least I do not believe in what someone else claims to be true, claims that always lack any objective support.
?? Oh well, I guess you thought you made some kind of point there.Quote:
Absolutely! I believe in a lot of things, just not an unseen being in the clouds.
For the record, I don't believe in any unseen being in the clouds either. I believe in God.
Here's a question for you. Why do you feel it necessary to debate when you apparently have nothing relevant to add to the discussion? Do you feel some sort of loyalty to the unbelievers or something?
Sincerely, if you ever want to have a friendly discussion about what you believe vs what I believe, just ask me. We can do better than whatever this is.
De Maria
I'm the ying to yor yang. :) Why do you feel the need to debate everyone on this site? What relevancy do you bring? An unbeliever such as yourself can't seem to grasp that people are individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Does that mean you just like to debate with me? If so, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I thought I answered that. I like to debate. Simple as that.Quote:
Why do you feel the need to debate everyone on this site?
Quite a bit. I've been studying my faith for approximately 20 years, so I'm fairly knowledgeable. As I said, I came on this forum to share my knowledge of Christianity and especially Catholicism with everyone here.Quote:
What relevancy do you bring?
As far as debate, well I just joined in the prevailing culture of this forum. However, in those 20 years of study, I have accumulated about 10 years of experience in debate, so I was well equipped to defend my beliefs when you first challenged me.
If you notice, I normally answer the OP. Then people who disagree, respond to me in objection to my opinion. I then respond to them. If you remember our first encounter that was the precise sequence of events.
I have at times reserved the right to respond to people who didn't address me but to whose messages I objected however. Especially since it seems to be part of the culture on this site.
I don't know where you get that impression. A believer like yourself can't seem to grasp that people have different opinions and that they might just disagree with you.Quote:
An unbeliever such as yourself can't seem to grasp that people are individuals.
Sincerely,
De Maria
For De Maria
Actually I'm getting a little bit tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.
If it is your intention to be here an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !
Your favoutite response : a wild claim. Without any support. And as usual totally lacking any respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
===
I asked you : Quote : "Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?"
NOT TRUE !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I never ask anyone to defend his belief. I always state that you may believe whatever suits you. But if you insist that what you believe is the one and only truth (i.e. that what you believe is the reality), yes than I ask for objective supporting evidence. Which you can not provide, because all what you seem to believe are religious claims.
You fail to realize that in this situation you may of course claim as much as you want, but that I in return may ask for objective supporting evidence for each of your unsupported claims.
And I always do that with respect for your personal views. Something you fail to maintain time and time again !
===
As your selection of my previous points was extremely selective and frequently disrespectfull, I don't waste any further time on responses. I just repeat the first lines of this response :
If it is your intention here to be an example of a "good" Christian, beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !
What a coincidence, the reason I've been responding to your posts lately is because I'm tired of your aggressive and disrespectful posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I hope so. But I don't think I can give much of an example via the internet. Mostly I just hoped to pass on accurate information about Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.Quote:
If it is your intention to be here an example of a "good" Christian,
Although there are many differences, there are also many ways in which many philosphical positions meet and agree with religious beliefs. Unless you are specific I can't tell you which Secular Humanistic ideas I agree with. But there is one with which I vehemently disagree. The idea that God doesn't exist.Quote:
beware that you are actually supporting the Secular Humanist position a lot !
If you are saying that my responses are wild claims without any support, I have already debunked that accusation which you make of everyone Christian. And I have proven it is you making the wild claims without any support.Quote:
Your favoutite response : a wild claim. Without any support. And as usual totally lacking any respect.
And I said, wait a sec, I'm getting to it and I added my response to your previous post to that message.Quote:
I asked you : Quote : "Why do you not react to the points I made in my previous post?"
Perhaps. But by attacking and belittling their beliefs, you put everyone in the position of having to defend their beliefs.Quote:
NOT TRUE !!! I never ask anyone to defend his belief.
Again, your bias has clouded your mind so completely that you can't even think logically, you don't recognize objective supporting evidence when it is presented to you.Quote:
I always state that you may believe whatever suits you. But if you insist that what you believe is the one and only truth (i.e. that what you believe is the reality), yes than I ask for objective supporting evidence. Which you can not provide, because all what you seem to believe are religious claims.
And because your bias is so great, you don't realize that you haven't provided any objective supporting evidence to support your wild claims.
And because you are overzealous bordering on fanatical concerning your beliefs, you assume that your definition of simple English words, such as "belief" are the only definition in the world. You are so overzealous in that matter that I assume you haven't even looked at a dictionary to verify that your definition is correct.
Which I have provided. And I have asked you for objective evidence to support your unsupported claims and you have provided nothing. Your entire argument consists of denials of the evidence provided to you.Quote:
You fail to realize that in this situation you may of course claim as much as you want, but that I in return may ask for objective supporting evidence for each of your unsupported claims.
As I said, I show you as much respect as you show me.Quote:
And I always do that with respect for your personal views. Something you fail to maintain time and time again !
What did you expect me to do? I selected that which was objectionable, which was most of the post and I addressed those portions.Quote:
As your selection of my previous points was extremely selective
As I said, my response is as respectful to you as you are to me.Quote:
and frequently disrespectfull,
Ok.Quote:
I don't waste any further time on responses.
See my response above as well.Quote:
I just repeat the first lines of this response :
Sincerely,
De Maria
Nowhere have I been disrespectfull to your world viewsQuote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
As stated before : I do not attack religious views. I allow everyone to believe whatever he/she believes, without any demands.
But that is : till the moment that a believer starts claiming that what he/she believes is the "one and only truth", i.e. that his/her religious views are factual.
At that moment I feel entitled to ask for objective supporting evidence for the religious claims. And if I do , I always do that in a respectful way - unlike you .
Enough said !
Yeah, you have. Lets see, you claim Christians are brainwashed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You continually deny that a believer has examined the evidence:Quote:
If you during your youth have been brainwashed into Christianity
You continually portray yourself as superior to believers:Quote:
as I have never seen any religious claim or `one and only truth´ to be supported by objective evidence.
Quote:
Actually I doubt if one needs religion to do good. If "doing good" is not part of your standard lifestyle, religion won't help neither, as at best any improved results will be based on wrong reasoning.
Yes you do. But you use a passive aggressive style. By continually stating that you don't attack religious views from one side of your mouth and then continually characterizing religious views as unsupported wild claims.Quote:
As stated before : I do not attack religious views.
Only because there is nothing you can do about it. But you continually get into discussions which are besides the point of the OP. And it is always the same fanatical refrain, believe what you want but it is all unsupported wild claims:Quote:
I allow everyone to believe whatever he/she believes, without any demands.
Are believers motivated to do good? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims".
Another persons asks, what happened to Jesus body? Your response, "it is all unsupported wild claims."
And on and on. A person asked what is the definition of a fanatic and another posted this response:
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill
That describes you.
And that right there contradicts your previous statement that you permit people to believe the evidence as they see fit. If they don't believe as you do, you harangue them constantly.Quote:
But that is : till the moment that a believer starts claiming that what he/she believes is the "one and only truth", i.e. that his/her religious views are factual.
I've yet to see it.Quote:
At that moment I feel entitled to ask for objective supporting evidence for the religious claims. And if I do , I always do that in a respectful way - unlike you .
If that were only true.Quote:
Enough said !
Sincerely,
De Maria
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
What is the"secular humanist" position?
On abortion
On origins of life
On eternal life
On good and evil
What is right, what is wrong?
What is your "bible"
Is it that there is no God? That position is disrespectful to the religious.
My PERSONAL Secular Humanist position is :Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
- on abortion : in general I am against abortion (except in cases of abuse and special situation in which the mother's life is at stake when the pregnancy is continued. But I leave it to every individual to come to his/her own conclusion. It's a moral question, not a religious one.
- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth. We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.
- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.
- on good and evil : there are good, and there are evil people. There is no supporting evidence that the percentages of good and evil are in general different in theist against non-theists.
- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.
- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).
- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.
Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".
Anything else?
;)
Many are indeed. Not only Christians : all believers in deity/deities.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
People are born without any religious references. During their youth children are in some way indeed brainwashed into believing that God/Gods exist.
Nonsense ! A strict believer can only make religious claims as he/she can not provide even a single iota of objective supporting evidence for what he/she believes. There simply is only belief. No evidence for any religious claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I do not. But are you now blaming me for your own inferiority complex?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
.. //..
So? That is 100 % true ! Whatever you believe, it are claims, nothing else. That is : till YOU prove your claims to be true. So far you have never done that. No problem with me, but than do not claim that whatever you believe is "the one and only truth!"Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Cred
[QUOTE=Credendovidis]My PERSONAL
[QUOTE]Credo, scientists Do not KNOW with 100% certain that life began on earth and also scientist do not KNOW that the World is 4 billion years old. That figure is based on the assumptions that the methods used for dating the earth (like carbon dating) are accurate. There is no way to prove that the assumptions used in such methods are accurate. So if that is your belief, it is based on faith not Facts.Quote:
- on origins of life : all we know is that life started on earth.
We do not know how, we do not know why. Seems that the conditions for first primitive life to form were some 4 billion years ago.
That is your belief. LIkewise, you do not have an iota of objective evidence to support your claim that there is no life after death.Quote:
- on eternal life : We are born, we live, we die. That is it. Eternal life is a religious claim for which there is not one single iota of objective supporting evidence.
It seems your "golden rule conflicts with your beliefs on abortion. That small life growing in the womb of a mother who has been raped. If she terminates the pregnancy and ends the life of that baby, is she doing unto others what she wants done unto her?Quote:
- what is right, what is wrong : use the golden rule : do not do to others what you do not like to be done to yourself. Simple and clear. No need for any religious guidance there.
Again your beliefs..Quote:
- I have no "bible". I do not need a "bible". The Christian Bible is just a book on the cultural and historical data - and religious views - of the jews (OT) and later of the early christians (NT).
Niether can you or anyone prove he does NOT exist.Quote:
- Nobody can provide objective supporting evience for the existence of a God or Gods.
To question and/or reject god/gods is not disrespectful to religious people.
There can only be one truth. At the end of the day one of us is right, and I think just based on rationality and common sense, that theist are right.Quote:
Once more my standard point of view in all these matters : believe whatever you like to believe : no problemo! But do not claim that what you believe the "one and only truth".
Yes they do. Life began on earth. At least the life we know. There may be billions of other life forms. But that is irrelevant. We live on earth. Life exists on earth. That life started here. No assumptions at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
And the entire solar system is around 4.3 Billion years old. There is ample objective supported evidence for that. But of course you may BELIEVE otherwise !
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim that there is an afterlife. It is not on me to prove that your religiously based claim is incorrect. Do some classes in logical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
That is a philosophical point of view. It has little to do with the general meaning of the golden rule. You are nittpicking out of pure frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim. Not on me. Do some classes in logical thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Theism based on rationality and common sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You REALLY need that course in logical thinking...
Ciao!
I am hoping that this thread does end up being closed!
Are you always so negative ? WHY do you hope that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
;)
I hope it doesn't close because I rather like having a thread I opened and keep it going for sometime so that I can post some more posts regarding believers in general.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I don't think I am always negative.
[QUOTE]Credo, I am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so I am guessing I am probably more scientifically educated that you. Do you know what carbon dating is? If so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. This is only true, ONLY if you ASSUME that the assumptions used in dating the earth are accurate and there is no way to prove those assumptions are factual. So if you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years old, it is by Faith not because it is a fact.
How convenient for you. You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.Quote:
The burden of proof is on the (positive) claim that there is an afterlife. It is not on me to prove that your religiously based claim is incorrect. Do some classes in logical thinking.
No, actually it just points out the flaws and inconsitancies in your beliefs. You said "it is just that simple" and I am pointing out to you that it is NOT that simple. Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.Quote:
That is a philosophical point of view. It has little to do with the general meaning of the golden rule. You are nittpicking out of pure frustration.
Yes, and I will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an atheist comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.Quote:
Theism based on rationality and common sense?
You REALLY need that course in logical thinking...
Let me give you an analogy... It would be like if I landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and I come to the conclusion that ithe machine just a apeared on jupitor from no where by accident and evolved over time.
A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine, its complexity of design and functionality, that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor capable of creating a designing the machine. However using this analogy an atheist would conclude that the machine has no intelligent creator or originator but rather appeared by accident from "no where". Logical? No
SASSSSSY ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Thank you for your reply.
I see this "golden rule" bandied about all the time.
Why do you adhere to this versus another philosophy,.
For example.
I should do whatever I dang well please, that is all that matters.
Or perhaps A Darwinian philosophy of,. by whatever means I'm am going to survive and make sure my genes are passed on, even if means eliminating "inferior" competittion.
How, in a world of no absolutes, is that any worse or better than the "golden rule"
As to origins of life, what proof do you have that "the conditions were right, " is there a lab somewhere that actually knows the exact conditions at the very beginning? Miller's experiments have been debunked. If you do not know for sure, no proof as your Creed goes, how do you know this is reality and not some figment of something's imagination?
[QUOTE=sassyT]Quote:
credo, i am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so i am guessing i am probably more scientifically educated that you. Do you know what carbon dating is? If so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable?
Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. This is only true, ONLY if you ASSUME that the assumptions used in dating the earth are accurate and there is no way to prove those assumptions are factual. So if you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years old, it is by Faith not because it is a fact.
How convenient for you. You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.
No, actually it just points out the flaws and inconsitancies in your beliefs. You said "it is just that simple" and i am pointing out to you that it is NOT that simple. Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.
Yes, and i will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an atheist comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
Let me give you an analogy... It would be like if i landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and i come to the conclusion that ithe machine just a apeared on jupitor from no where by accident and evolved over time.
A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine, its complexity of design and functionality, that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor capable of creating a designing the machine. However using this analogy an atheist would conclude that the machine has no intelligent creator or originator but rather appeared by accident from "no where". Logical? No
SASSSSSY ;)
Agree, science, that is the evidence at hand and not unprovable assumptions or theories, point away from random chance as to why and how things are here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Well... may be not always... yes - no - yes - no : just make up your mind what you wish...Quote:
Originally Posted by firmbeliever
;)
I have degrees in Electronic Engineering and in Business Management. However , neither your degrees nor mine are any assetts in a discussion that at your side seems completely biased by your religious beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Talk about a condescending attitude... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
I assume you are one of these young earthers, or follow other creationists or ID views.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
It is rather irrelevant if the solar system is 4.3 Billion years or 4.2 Billion years old.
What is important that it is NOT some odd 6000 years old, just because some selected dates in the Bible add up to that amount of time.
Science has clearly proven beyond any doubt that the solar system is some 4.x years old.
If you have other ideas, than PROVE that. Don't babble here non-scientific creationist' claims.
Total nonsense ! I have never stated that. I stated (or if I once slipped up : I should have stated) that there is no objective supporting evidence for life after death.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You and your theist mates claim that there is LAD. I ask you where the objective supporting evidence for the LAD is. So far that evidence is still missing.
The claim is your, not mine. If you can't prove your claim, it is all based on belief only, and surely no support for LAD.
The golden rule applies almost everywhere and in almost every position and view. There are very few exceptions. Even your own Christian mentor used the golden rule. Read your book of instructions !Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
What intelligent designer? Why him/her/it? Why not the Pink Unicorn or the Spaghetti Monster? Because you BELIEVE in the ID. You BELIEVE the ID exists. But you have no objective supporting evidence for that religious claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
So who is making up here his/her arguments? Not I!! By the way : please get a course in logical argumentation : you really need one !
;)
And if you think that way, everyone should be allowed to think that way. How long do you think would you last under these conditions in some back street in one of the US metropoles ?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
The golden rule tells you that if you like to pass your genes, everyone else should be allowed to do the same. A good and fair rule that serves all. But who is going to decide what "inferior" is in this philosophical context?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Life exists. And science tells us that life exists on earth already about 3.5 Billion year.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
A logical conclusion is that the conditons were right, that long ago. Or was it 3.4 or 3.6 Billions years ?
The ID "Jack out of the box" is NOT a logical conclusion. For the ID there is no logical reason to exist at all. The universe does not need an ID, life does not need an ID. The only ones that require an ID are semi-creationist' believers in an ID.
;)
How about rape? That is a means of passing on your genes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Look up eugenics and Hitler, this is a historical example of Darwinism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovis
What is the logical conclusion YOU can draw fom the fact that scientists can not prove or show evidence of life from non-life. Link me to a peer reviewed science journal that can 1] know the exact conditions at the start of life from non life 2] reproduce this 3] and demonstrate that this "life" can propagate and give rise to other divergent life forms.
This cannot be done, and so your belief, and that is what it is, is based on the faith. Faith / belief that you disparage if it is religious faith / belief.
Here is science
Quote:
The Photonic Beetle: Nature Builds Diamond-Like Crystals For Future Optical Computers
“NATURE has simple ways of MAKING structures and materials that are still unobtainable with our million-dollar instruments and ENGINEERING strategies.”
“NATURE uses very simple strategies to DESIGN structures to manipulate light – structures that are beyond the reach of our current abilities,” Galusha says.
Notice all the amount of human research it takes to discover what is DESIGNED [ in nature. if you cannot accept God] by God. :D
[QUOTE]that explains your ignorance in the field of radiometrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Your side is biased by your religious beliefs in a religion I like to call secular humanisms.Quote:
However , neither your degrees nor mine are any assetts in a discussion that at your side seems completely biased by your religious beliefs.
I Don't believe the earth is young or old. I believe the FACT that the age of the earth is unknowable and unprovable beyond a doubt. That is the FACT of the matter. If you believe it is 4.3 billion years old, it is by FAITH.Quote:
I assume you are one of these young earthers, or follow other creationists or ID views.
It is rather irrelevant if the solar system is 4.3 Billion years or 4.2 Billion years old.
What is important that it is NOT some odd 6000 years old, just because some selected dates in the Bible add up to that amount of time.
Science has clearly proven beyond any doubt that the solar system is some 4.x years old.
If you have other ideas, than PROVE that. Don't babble here non-scientific creationist' claims.
The Bible does not tells us the age of the earth. It just says "in the begining God created the Heavens and the earth..." It does not specify the time frame from when God created the earth to when He created man. That time frame could have been anywhere from 1day to a Trillion years. No one knows.
There is objective evidence for life after death. There are many people who have died for a few minutes or had near death experiences and have come back to tell what they saw on the other side. Read these..Quote:
Total nonsense ! I have never stated that. I stated (or if I once slipped up : I should have stated) that there is no objective supporting evidence for life after death.
You and your theist mates claim that there is LAD. I ask you where the objective supporting evidence for the LAD is. So far that evidence is still missing.
The claim is your, not mine. If you can't prove your claim, it is all based on belief only, and surely no support for LAD.
BBC News | HEALTH | Evidence of 'life after death'
Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death
The evidence is there but it is just a matter of do you accept it or not. Whether you do or not, your choise is purely subjective.
[QUOTE]It could very well have been the spaghetti monster who created the Universe. Someone did. Relying on Logic alone, logic tells us that things that apear to have an obvious design and functionality, must have an intelligent originator.Quote:
What intelligent designer? Why him/her/it? Why not the Pink Unicorn or the Spaghetti Monster?
For example... It is illogical to see a Computer and conclude it appeared accidentally and has no intelligent creator behind it. The human brain far more advanced than a computer in its design and functionality, so it is just as illogical to conclude the brain appeared accidentally and has no intelligent creator.
Lol.. I agree with you.. It looks like Credo is not following his/her own motto "I believe it as soon as I see it " She/he obviously has not witnessed most of what she believes in niether is there any factual evidence for the things she has Faith in.Quote:
INTHEBOX: What is the logical conclusion YOU can draw fom the fact that scientists can not prove or show evidence of life from non-life. Link me to a peer reviewed science journal that can 1] know the exact conditions at the start of life from non life 2] reproduce this 3] and demonstrate that this "life" can propagate and give rise to other divergent life forms.
This cannot be done, and so your belief, and that is what it is, is based on the faith. Faith / belief that you disparage if it is religious faith / belief.
I think its time she change her credo.. :D
You have now lowered yourself to a deliberate insulting and aggressive attitude. Let's see how board management react on that...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You can not and have not even supported that "ignorance in the field of radiometrics".
But even if you can, it has little to do with the question lead.
Are you always reacting that way when you run out of real arguments?
;)
The theory of relativity tells us that a day is the time it takes Earth to revolve once on it's axis, a year is the time it takes to go once around the sun. So if the Earth is for some reason moving more slowly a year could take a really long time. If for some reason it starts to spin in the opposite direction time travels backward. So an Earth 6000 years or billions of years old is not mutually exclusive.
[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
There is nothing insulting about saying someone is ignorant in a certain subject. I am ignorant too in the subject of sky diving, mining, flying kites etc.. Big deal... that is not an insult. :rolleyes:
You have clearly displayed an ignorance in the fact that carbon dating uses assumptions that can not be proven true to determine, with certainty, the age of the earth. Therefore saying the earth is 4.3 billion years old is NOT a fact. It is a generally accepted scientific theory. If you were educated on the subject of methods used to date the earth you would know this.Quote:
You can not and have not even supported that "ignorance in the field of radiometrics".
But even if you can, it has little to do with the question lead.
Are you always reacting that way when you run out of real arguments?
You REALLY need some tutoring regarding the theory of relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
No, that theory is not about what a day is, how the earth revolves around it axis, and surely not on 6000 earth years being capable of - based on what you stated - billions of years.
It is not very wise to use arguments which you clearly do not understand as basis of your own religious argument.
:rolleyes:
You call that ignorance ? Let's discuss YOUR IGNORANCE!!Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Carbon dating has never been used for dating the age of the solar system. Where did I state that?
It it YOU who brought up carbon dating. Not I.
Periods of billions of years can never be calculated from carbon dating. One of the many available dating processes that can go that far back is uranium dating.
Besides that all : it is irrelevant if it is 4.5 Billion years, or 3.5 or 5.5 Billlion years.
Note that I have no problem if you follow Ken Ham and his creationist friends. Believe whatever you prefer to believe.
But whatever Ken Ham tells you, science makes sure that certainly the earth is much much older than some odd 6000 years, a claim that is based on biblical data only, and not on facts.
;)
Firmy... just had to say, kudos to you for effectively stating your beliefs, your belief system, and your core foundations. It takes courage to do so, even on an anonymous, public forum such as AMHD.
Debating never has, nor ever will be, one of my forte's... I'm not a proponent of debating simply to debate. Therefore, this thread has become (in my own opinion), virtually useless because it has veered off topic - that of stating an individual forum member's core belief.
Maybe it should have been posted in The Lounge as opposed to Religious Discussions... Or maybe Religious Discussions should be renamed Religious Debates. :)
Bottom line: I'm proud of you, Firmy, for stating your beliefs. For being willing to take the "heat" for what you believe. For enduring the line-by-line shredding of your belief system and not wavering. You go, girl.
One thing that Credendovidis said on one of his posts that caught my eye and made me go "Hmm, I like that" was that it is the prerogative for each individual to state "I believe that..." before stating their beliefs because that is true in its very essence. We all believe what we believe. That's it. So, kudos to credendovidis for that statement.
:) HC out. :)
(Yup, I show up, make a comment, encourage a poster, and leave. Random acts of encouragement. Yeah... I'm OK with that! :))
Awww... thank you for the encouraging words HC!
I note that you can not even spell that properly. The more angered you get, the more of these mistakes you seem to make... I wonder why...Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Besides that : Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs.
It is just a worldview. (Secular = wordly and Humanism = interest in or corcern for human beings)
It really helps in a "discussion" to know what you are talking about...
;)
[QUOTE]Where did the solar system come from? We are talking about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Don't abandon ship..Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Which is a form of radiometric dating that uses at least 5 assumptions as a premise.Quote:
Periods of billions of years can never be calculated from carbon dating. One of the many available dating processes that can go that far back is uranium dating.
Like I said before, the Bible does not say or even imply the earth is 6000years old.Quote:
Besides that all : it is irrelevant if it is 4.5 Billion years, or 3.5 or 5.5 Billlion years.
Note that I have no problem if you follow Ken Ham and his creationist friends. Believe whatever you prefer to believe.
But whatever Ken Ham tells you, science makes sure that certainly the earth is much much older than some odd 6000 years, a claim that is based on biblical data only, and not on facts.
So who ever this Ken Ham guy is, that is his guess and his guess is as good as yours, 4.5 billion. My guess is 500 trillion :D
The bottom line is the methods used to date the earth apply assumptions that can not be proven. Just to give a reminder let me define the word "assumption" for you
as·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
A minor premise.
So like I said, you can only have FAITH that the assuptions in radio dating are accurate. There is NO way of KNOWING, that the assuptions are accurate therefore making 4.5 billion nothing more than a good guess. :)
[QUOTE=inthebox]How about rape? That is a means of passing on your genes?
Look up eugenics and Hitler, this is a historical example of Darwinism.
The passing of genes is "Darwinism" - at least part of it, but references to eugenics are examples of a bastardization of evolutionary theory called "social Darwinism" and has no real connection to evolutionary science.
As to the posts about a so-called "intelligent designer," and an atheist seeing "accidents"... your designer wasn't so intelligent in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, DNA replication... etc. And I see none of the things you mentioned as "accidents" except in that they were not planned. From geological structures to every living thing, they are the result of entirely natural processes - which include the occasional "mistakes" which result in either the detriment of offspring, or their betterment.
[QUOTE]okey I can't spell and you have terrible grammar.. so we are even lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Quote:
Besides that : Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs.
It is just a worldview. (Secular = wordly and Humanism = interest in or corcern for human beings)
It really helps in a "discussion" to know what you are talking about...
Hey... I'm saying what other Humanists say about it... John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion.
Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion.
In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke of Secular Humanism as a religion. The Doctrine a beliefs of secular humanism are based on faith, not facts.
So it looks like you need to do more research on your own religion.
[QUOTE]How did you come to that conclusion? If we say hypothetically, for your sake, that there is an intelligent designer who created the entire universe and beyond, what makes you say he was not intelligent in the above components you listed? Please clarifyQuote:
Originally Posted by WVHiflyer
Isn't that in essence the saying the same thing?Quote:
And I see none of the things you mentioned as "accidents" except in that they were not planned.
This is true assuming the evolutionary theory is accurate in its premise. However although it is generally accepted by scientists, it is not however a fact and its validity is highly questionable.Quote:
From geological structures to every living thing, they are the result of entirely natural processes - which include the occasional "mistakes" which result in either the detriment of offspring, or their betterment.
Not so 'intelligent': humans' bad backs, appendix; panda's reappearing thumb; that there are errors in DNA replication; hormonal imbalances...
Accidents are not the same as not planned. Many things occur that aren't planned that are not considered 'accidents' and could be even "good news" (serendipity, spontaneity).
There is no credible, evidence against the theory of evolution. It is as accepted a "fact" as the one that states the Earth revolves around the Sun or that gravity is what makes you fall down. The only debate among scientists (credible ones, anyway) are the mechanisms by which it occurs. So your belief that it is "highly questionable" couldn't be more wrong.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:32 AM. |