How much longer?

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

What strawman?

an evolved sack of chemicals

How do they grant themselves relevancy? By what process?

This is the same question you asked before and I've already answered it. When will you ever learn you can't funnel people into giving you the responce you want. Why ask a question over and over as if people aren't intelligent enough to see the trap you try to set?

 

[DDan]

How do they grant themselves relevancy? By what process?

By facing facts and understanding exactly what they are and not by imagining they are something they are not.

 

[justlookinla]

an evolved sack of chemicals

That's not a strawman, that's the conclusion of certain views of evolution. We're nothing more than a sack of chemicals produced by only naturalistic mechanisms, with no inherent value.

This is theb same question you asked before and I've already answered it. When will you ever learn you can't funnel people into giving you the responce you want. Why ask a question over and over as if people aren't intelligent enough to see the trapp you try to set?

And of course no answer.

 

[justlookinla]

By facing facts and understanding exactly what they are and not by imagining they are something they are not.

Tell me the process they use to 'understand exactly what they are'. What are these facts?

 

[DDan]

Tell me the process they use to 'understand exactly what they are'. What are these facts?

I'm not going there because just like a child your response to any answers will always be another question.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not going there because just like a child your response to any answers will always be another question.

LOL. Of course you aren't going there.

Not surprised.

 

[DDan]

LOL. Of course you aren't going there.

Not surprised.

Had you arrived at your belief through reason then reason might perhaps change your mind but as you and I both know there was no reason involved was there?
You seem to have the ability to talk yourself into believing anything, unfortunately I don't have that same ability.

 

[dad]

How much longer do you think creationism will be tolerated in the US?

Forever. However the US will not be tolerated all that long by God.

 

[DDan]

Forever. However the US will not be tolerated all that long by God.

So it's look out USA God is watching you, which intolerant God are you alluding to anyway? I've heard that Allah is not a very tolerant God.

 

[dad]

So it's look out USA God is watching you, which intolerant God are you alluding to anyway? I've heard that Allah is not a very tolerant God.

Jesus is my God. Notice that Obama runs an antiChrist regime? But even if that were not the case, all nations will one day fall and Jesus will reign. The US also if it were around.

Jesus never tolerated Sodom nor the pre flood wicked world.

 

[pdudgeon]

The same place that morality has always come from. Man has always been the source of morality.

wrong. man has an inate sense of what is best for them. any 2 year old will tell you that!
morality isn't what is best for me, morality is what is best for my neighbor.
and that concern for our neighbor was put there by God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did I not say that they reject what religion says we came into being?

So they can reject how we came into being, but still retain claim they have a body, soul, and spirit?

Is that what you're saying?

Reject the chef, but the cake came into existence by natural forces.

Hmmm.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

That's not a strawman, that's the conclusion of certain views of evolution. We're nothing more than a sack of chemicals produced by only naturalistic mechanisms, with no inherent value.

Bull. That's your determination of what people who think that God doesn't exist think that they are. You personally set this up as a standard, which is a strawman. Then you asked how quote/unquote they determine their relivance.

And of course no answer.

I called you out for the B.S. tactic you used to try to manipulate others peoples responce. I'm not going to play your game by your rules. As far as how a person determines their relivance I've already answered that, but it wasn't the answer you wanted, so you walked away from it.

I've seen this type of deceit before and it always returns back to the same question repeated, with a few varients and of course the same dismissive responce to any answer that doesn't support your agenda, which is no answer or in your case "Ofcourse, no answer."

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

So they can reject how we came into being, but still retain claim they have a body, soul, and spirit?

Is that what you're saying?

Reject the chef, but the cake came into existence by natural forces.

Hmmm.

Just because to you and I there is a God doesn't mean to others there is no God.
You talk about the body, soul and spirit, but can you define what the soul and what the spirit is?

I believe they are the conscience life essence that was blown into our bodies at birth, but maybe you have a different opinion.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

By facing facts and understanding exactly what they are and not by imagining they are something they are not.

He's trying to get you into a situation where the conscience and ethical and morale codes are brought up so he can through in the everything came from God arguement. I've seen this done over and over. It's iritating because of the fact. We Christian's believe that all goodness comes from God. I would have talked dirrectly to you about this, without the word play, but I'm not out here to get you. There's no honor in leading people on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because to you and I there is a God doesn't mean to others there is no God.
You talk about the body, soul and spirit, but can you define what the soul and what the spirit is?

I believe they are the conscience life essence that was blown into our bodies at birth, but maybe you have a different opinion.

The Cliffs notes on body, soul, and spirit go like this:

• body = soma = emirical senses = fueled by food
• soul = psyche = mind, will, emotions = fueled by emotions & consciousness
• spirit = pneuma = spiritual nature = fueled by the word of God

 

[DerelictJunction]

Even if it's detrimental to the society? where do you draw the line?

Governments draw the line at the point where the speech instigates or causes immediate bodily harm or significant property damage. Even in those instances, the speech is not hindered. Instead the instigator is held somewhat accountable for the damage done.

I would say there is free speech and then there is stupidity with society deciding what is stupid and what is not,
in the US it's money that decides what stupid is and for that reason religion and ignorance is supported and encouraged,
the masses can have the religion and while they're praying the top people can take all the money.

What you believe is stupid has no relevance regarding what should be allowed.
Saying stupid or offensive things is not punishable by the government in the U.S. However, there are no restrictions on the citizens in their verbal responses to said stupidity or offensiveness.

For instance, I find that your remarks regarding religion and your contention that it should be restricted, to be stupid and incendiary. Additionally, I contend that your continued attempts to access this site and hurl insults at the religious members, should promote an inquiry as to the strength of your medication and your adherence to the dosage schedule.

 

[Subduction Zone]

wrong. man has an inate sense of what is best for them. any 2 year old will tell you that!
morality isn't what is best for me, morality is what is best for my neighbor.
and that concern for our neighbor was put there by God.

There is no evidence of that. But we can see that all upper animals, including man, have a sense of right and wrong that applies that that animal.

As I said, morality as we know it, comes from man. No gods need apply.

 

[DDan]

I contend that your continued attempts to access this site and hurl insults at the religious members.

Could you please point to one insult I have hurled at the religious members?

 

[SnowyMacie]

The worldview which concludes that we're simply sacks of chemicals (Darwinism)

Our biochemical makeup has really nothing to do with Darwin's theory.