- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,999
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And I have a feeling you think it is.Only if your view of reality is skewed.
I never said there is no God. (part of your straw man, remeber)
I don't believe god/s exist.
Is this "stepping up" enough for you?
I'm not beholden to any system of belief
I accept what the current theories have observed.
I don't know if god/s exists: is a true statement.
I don't believe god/s exist: is a true statement.
You're trying too hard to confuse yourself.
Yes, I accept current scientific theories as the best explanation of reality. Any new evidence to help us better understand or change our view of reality, I would also accept.So you accept those but you don't obligate yourself to anything but that there is no God?
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what can be demonstrated. I don't know if there is or isn't a god/s. I've seen no evidence to support this assertion, IMO.Yes, it must be me and you didn't step all over yourself there.
I take full responsibility.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what can be demonstrated. I don't know if there is or isn't a god/s. I've seen no evidence to support this assertion, IMO.
Atheism is a statement of belief, as in, I don't believe in god/s.
I'm perfectly happy to have a dialectic with you, but that would require you cooling the straw man and snarkyness.
Cool. Take care.More easily said than done...when some start bouncing around, shifting things here and there in order to come out on top, that'll bring it out every time...and it's hardly just you, doing it. There are others that are really bad at it, and I don't counter it as I do because I like to.
Then there is the fact that others get snarky as well, something sure to bring it out, and the fact that I really believe any other way is as absurd as some believe the idea of God is, so, yes, I am snarky at times but it's not just that simple.
On the Straw man comment, the claim will come up if I merely indicate he's real and this is a Christian site where people actually believe that, so not sure how I can possibly cool that.
How bout the Straw Big bang some believe, or the Straw evolution...anyone cooling that? I don't think they are.
Well, here's a newsflash: Quetzacoatl ≠ Allah.
What do you mean I did not organize it, lol? Organize it your own self, and give it a test if you like. I guess I gave you way too much credit.
Oh and I'll make the "prediction" of the outcome if you promise to test it, if you need me to organize the test for you and show you how it's testable, be happy to hold your hand.
Funny how now I have to present it in such a way for it to be called science at all. Or...wait...do I really? Where in the rules does it say I have to meet your demands that you "said" I did not meet, in order for it to be termed as science?
Now you have switched back to "people" in general and not people here like you claimed I said to begin with? Until you can stop hopping around, changing the meaning of my posts so you can say I'm wrong, then changing it back again when caught, your just going to have to settle with my answering little or nothing of what you post towards me.
As for this, tell you what, you just assume nothing I claimed there was correct, pat yourself on the back and go on pretending you actually believe that. Once you stop pretending, and trying to waste my time, then maybe we can take up were we left off. Until then, not going to waste my time with your contrary little games that contribute nothing to the subject.
Says the guy who after 3 requests, STILL hasn't come up with a SINGLE link to a post where the things you claimed are said, were actually said.If you didn't remotley evade the question, can you please point me to where you answered? Seems a reasonable request to me anyway.
Yes, that's stepping up just enough, to show you weren't being exactly truthful.
Well, in another thread he recently insisted that things I hadn´t said could be read "between the lines".Says the guy who after 3 requests, STILL hasn't come up with a SINGLE link to a post where the things you claimed are said, were actually said.
Oops, sorry accidentally read that part, and find it absolutely hilarious one wold even think such a thing, much less actually say it.
For the moment leave faith out of this completely, and stop using it as an excuse. I'm talking no more than common sense/rational likelihoods, even facts, as in, nothing comes from nothing....now repeat after me, "That is a fact". Sorry but you all give me no other choice but to put it that way. Now, have I got your attention?
So, basically, you are saying..."Leave rationality out of a rational debate because common sense (rationality) tells us something from nothing is not only unlikely, but absurd/nil, even laughable. But since we would rather not believe the rational/there is a God, a creator (Has nothing to do with faith or The true God yet) get that common sense out of here, it has no place in this debate."
Three things on this:
1. I would clarify my comment about common sense related to faith based discussions - there is no common sense in using fairy tales and myths in a discussion which relates to science, the two are entirely separate. There is no common sense to be had in discussing religious beliefs, they require faith alone.
2. I have no idea how the universe started, how it was formed and how it came into existence. The big bang theory doesn't either, the Big Bang theory describes how the universe evolved from very shortly after it formed, when it was apparently about the size of a peach. I'm quoting here from a science blog for you to understand what scientists say:
"We've all heard of the Big Bang theory (I'm talking about the cosmological model, not the TV show), but it's important to understand what that theory is and what it's not. Let me take this opportunity to be precisely, abundantly, emphatically, ridiculously, fantastically clear: The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe. Full stop. Done. Call it. Burn that sentence into your brain. Say it before you go to sleep, and first thing when you wake up."
What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed)
What Atheists say, by and large, is that some of the questions in the universe are unanswered, some may never be answered, but they are unlikely to be answered by introducing a mystical being which can't be seen, heard, felt, measured or detected.
3. I don't think any scientist say you get something from nothing, I believe physics says it is unable to state with any certainty how the universe started, it is undiscovered. It is not rational to believe it was somehow "made" by god/ gods/ a creator who cannot be seen, heard, felt, detected and who exists in a mythical realm no one has ever seen. That is completely irrational and flies in the face of common sense, it has no place in a scientific discussion.
How can you say that "something from nothing" is absurd yet believe in the biggest something from nothing in history - a mysterious god/gods "made" the entire universe from nothing just by thinking it into existence, nothing made this god, it just "is" and has been for ever. That is absurd. Science being unable to explain everything is not absurd, it's actually far more sensible to acknowledge we don't know everything than to pretend we do by invoking an invisible god/s.
I clearly explained to you the difference between a scientific explanation and just a mere observation and how it relates to science being (un)able to "prove" things.
I see you're still stuck with your head in the sand. I also note that you did your very best to ignore the rest of that post where I explain these things in detail.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?