The origins of atheism

[ScottA]

It can.

Not without leaving out it's ultimate beginning. Which means that science is NOT qualified to answer such a question at all.

Male/female is a) not universal and b) it would need to point at a male/female deity. Which, if you follow the biblical version, it doesn't.
Rather, the biblical version is an after-the-fact explanation: there IS male and female (among humans). Why? Because God made it male and female. Why did he make it that way? No explanation given. If there were three genders amongst humans... or if we were sentient bacteria debating here, it would read "And God created them male, female and hurtz." Or "And God created them so that they reproduced by cell division, according to his image."

The bible does point to a Male (God) and a female bride (the chosen/church).

 

[Davian]

Change your channel selector to Freodin...and when he can show how to demonstrate a demonstration while the demonstration is in progress, then I will answer both of you. Otherwise, I refer you to my Sponsor.

Would your sponsor not be the one that provided you with funds, and not the other way around?

Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. - George Carlin

 

[HitchSlap]

Change your channel selector to Freodin...and when he can show how to demonstrate a demonstration while the demonstration is in progress, then I will answer both of you. Otherwise, I refer you to my Sponsor.

No sweat. How about you just tell us how you know the demonstration is real?

 

[Freodin]

Not without leaving out it's ultimate beginning. Which means that science is NOT qualified to answer such a question at all.

I didn't say anything about science.

The bible does point to a Male (God) and a female bride (the chosen/church).

Err... no, it doesn't. It uses that imagery, but even in the bible there isn't this connection between God / church and sexual reproduction.

After all, this would lack an explanation (which evolution provides) why there are male and female animals... and why sometimes there aren't.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh I see, that's common, skeptics Google a skeptic book about the Uranta Book and belive that hook, line and sinker without ever reading the UB. The revelators were restricted to the use of our sciences of the age where those facts had not yet been discovered. Other lost, previously known facts were restored.

So they were right about some things, but not others, because, you know, we couldn't tell you the truth... Convenient.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not without leaving out it's ultimate beginning. Which means that science is NOT qualified to answer such a question at all.

The bible does point to a Male (God) and a female bride (the chosen/church).

Why is god male? Why would an eternal, omnipotent being need to have and X/Y chromosome?

 

[Ana the Ist]

From what I gather, you are stopping him by not believing what he says. Or something like that.

Lol if I had magical powers that kept him silent I'd be using them more often

 

[Ana the Ist]

From what I gather, you are stopping him by not believing what he says. Or something like that.

Lol if I had magical powers that kept him silent I'd be using them more often

Chili man used to make a similar esoteric knowledge claim....then I went through the same thing and I don't see it as much from him now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm like "one" of the kids in a class who knows the answer to the question, while other kids don't.

Would it help my "looks" if I raise my hand higher?

Let's hear the answer then! And the question while you're at it!

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm like "one" of the kids in a class who knows the answer to the question, while other kids don't.

Would it help my "looks" if I raise my hand higher?

Let's hear the answer then! And the question while you're at it!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Double post!

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

You can say that again

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol if I had magical powers that kept him silent I'd be using them more often

Chili man used to make a similar esoteric knowledge claim....then I went through the same thing and I don't see it as much from him now.

Yeah, Chilli's argument is along the lines of, "if I don't assume anything, and simply believe it, I must be right, because I know I'm right, I'm sure of it."

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can say that again

Double post!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, Chilli's argument is along the lines of, "if I don't assume anything, and simply believe it, I must be right, because I know I'm right, I'm sure of it."

Lol that would be a scarily accurate signature

 

[quatona]

Exactly that. And you claimed that this truth has been demonstrated by "going to the core of your being, being undeniable".

I think you misunderstood him: It wasn´t meant to be a general claim. He meant "going to the core of Chriliman´s being, being undeniable".

If that is the way that this "truth" is demonstrated, I make the counterclaim: a different, contradicting truth is in exactly the same way demonstrated to me.

Well, you are not Chriliman. Quod licet Iovi no licet bovi.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, Chilli's argument is along the lines of, "if I don't assume anything, and simply believe it, I must be right, because I know I'm right, I'm sure of it."

What was that old Brittany Murphy movie where she's this mentally disturbed girl with some "save the world" type of secret?

There's a trailer for the movie where she's staring at the camera saying "I'll never telllll..."

someone should post that every time Scott claims to have an answer he won't share

 

[HitchSlap]

What was that old Brittany Murphy movie where she's this mentally disturbed girl with some "save the world" type of secret?

There's a trailer for the movie where she's staring at the camera saying "I'll never telllll..."

someone should post that every time Scott claims to have an answer he won't share

 

[Colter]

So they were right about some things, but not others, because, you know, we couldn't tell you the truth... Convenient.

Yes, but you have a very valid point and I'm not going to gloss that over or rationalize it like trying to make Noah's flood sound true. It is what it is. Within the Urantia book the revelstors tell us they had a mandate which forbid them from disclosing humanly undiscovered facts, but they could disclose things that we did know at some point in the past but have been lost in history. Just today some UB people were discussing this very thing. The 2.5 figure is even now being revised upward due to new measurements.

So they were right about some things, but not others, because, you know, we couldn't tell you the truth... Convenient.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, but you have a very valid point and I'm not going to gloss that over or rationalize it like trying to make Noah's flood sound true. It is what it is. Within the Urantia book the revelstors tell us they had a mandate which forbid them from disclosing humanly undiscovered facts, but they could disclose things that we did know at some point in the past but have been lost in history. Just today some UB people were discussing this very thing. The 2.5 figure is even now being revised upward due to new measurements.

Wait...what do you mean "revised"?

They just correct mistakes in the UB based on newer, more accurate information?