Question

juvenissun · Dec 25, 2015

SteveB28 said:
All of them have. There is nothing unique about yours.

You don't want to learn. That is your choice.
Good luck.

juvenissun · Dec 25, 2015

popsthebuilder said:
I don't think I understand what you were trying I say.

OK. Too bad.

SteveB28 · Dec 25, 2015

juvenissun said:
You don't want to learn. That is your choice.
Good luck.

Ah, there you would be hopelessly in error.

I have been an avid student for all of my 87 years.

However, your arrogance in asserting what I do and don't want is noted.

popsthebuilder · Dec 25, 2015

juvenissun said:
OK. Too bad.

You could reword it. Or not.

-57 · Dec 25, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
Well there's 3.5 mins I'll never get back...

At no point in the video did it describe any intelligence. It simply showed the process of cell replication.

The video didn't show cell replication.
secondly if that was 3.5 mins of wasted time...I really pity you.

SteveB28 · Dec 25, 2015

-57 said:
The video didn't show cell replication.
secondly if that was 3.5 mins of wasted time...I really pity you.

Oh, and here I was thinking you had departed.

juvenissun · Dec 26, 2015

SteveB28 said:
All of them have. There is nothing unique about yours.

How could I continue with what you said here?
You excluded yourself from any further learning.
Being 87 is NOT a reason to quit learning. Yes, I understand you, if there is no afterlife, then what is the learning for? Now you see one major problem for being an atheist.

juvenissun · Dec 26, 2015

popsthebuilder said:
You could reword it. Or not.

I don't. YOU reword it.

quatona · Dec 26, 2015

popsthebuilder said:
I wouldn't.

Someone else did, and this was being discussed.

Freodin · Dec 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
Why am I not serious? Why should I not be serious? I am always serious on everything I said. What is wrong with anything I have said?
The only thing to consider is: whether you like to be as serious as I am.

What is wrong with what you said? About all of it!

juvenissun said:
Everyone can imagine. But none of those unreasonable imaginations get developed into theology.

To logically counter such an absolute assertion as yours, all it takes is one counterexample... and there are many.
So what about all the other religions that exist or have existed? What about all the different versions of "theology" within Christianity?
They can be reasonable or unreasonable: most of them must be false... and imagined.

So where did they all come from? Why are and were they all "developed into theology"?

You like to hear some scientific arguments in favor of my God? Are you serious? You told me that you are not that good in science. Alright, if it is what you like to hear, here is a simple one:

It seems that you are not that good at reading comprehension.

What I told you was "...while I have a rather good education in the natural sciences, I am no expert in any field."
I really do have a rather good education in the natural sciences. Some of it at university level. But that isn't my expertise. I never made any degree at natural science, I never worked in any of these fields, I am not involved in research or developement in science.
I am not an expert. I might not be that good... but I am better than many others.

God uses (discloses) some scientific information in the teaching to His people at 4000 years ago. Those sciences are only confirmed to be literally true in the recent decades. And, the most wonderful thing is, God have told those scientifically primitive people about this big delay.

Is it a good one? The details would be scientifically heavy. My advice to you is to stick with those non-scientific arguments, like the one you accused me not being serious about. Of course, if you like to learn, I can give you one example of them. It won't be any nonsense as you imagined.

Provide your example.

Archaeopteryx · Dec 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
How could I continue with what you said here?
You excluded yourself from any further learning.
Being 87 is NOT a reason to quit learning. Yes, I understand you, if there is no afterlife, then what is the learning for? Now you see one major problem for being an atheist.

For life?

SteveB28 · Dec 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
How could I continue with what you said here?

Do as you please.

You excluded yourself from any further learning.

What arrogant rot. Because I don't conform to your particular belief structure, I have ceased learning?

Being 87 is NOT a reason to quit learning. Yes, I understand you, if there is no afterlife, then what is the learning for? Now you see one major problem for being an atheist.

More arrogance! You understand nothing about me. What you can't fathom is that not everyone falls lockstep into your fantasy about an imagined existence after death. The people that have "quit learning" are those who buy into this steaming pile!

juvenissun · Dec 26, 2015

Freodin said:
What is wrong with what you said? About all of it!
...
Provide your example.

With such an attitude, why should I give you any example on anything?

Freodin · Dec 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
With such an attitude, why should I give you any example on anything?

Let's take a closer look.

"Because established human theories can only be logical."
Examples for the contrary: conspiracy theories - religions that you do not adhere to - incomplete scientific models that the public 'accepts' - disproven scientific theories...
all of that is / was 'established'.
Some of these are 'logical', but still wrong. Some of these are completely illogical (most conspiracy theories are).

So, first sentence is wrong. Established human theories can be illogical.

"Nobody would listen to and accept any illogical theory."
Obviously, as by the previously given examples, many people do listen and accept illogical theories. Second sentence: wrong.

"So, Christianity is not able to be invented by human."
Because it is illogical, and illogical theories cannot be invented by humans?
Well, many Christians would disagree with you that Christianity is illogical... they might even be insulted by that suggestion.

In turn, that would mean that every other religion ever proposed by humans is logical, because only logical theories can be invented by humans, right?
Shall we go through every religious concept of every past and present religion to ascertain that all these concepts are "logical"? And if we were to go through every argument that shows us how sexual intercourse between sky and earth, the salvation from the existence of the self, or aquiring knowledge of magic by hanging on trees is "logic"... can you present the concepts of Christianity that are so illogical and uninventable by humans that are not explainable by similar arguments?

So, no, third sentence false.

I stand by what I said: all of what you said is wrong. I can explain why I think so, and I just did. This is my attitude. Either accept it, or argue against it.

Ana the Ist · Dec 26, 2015

-57 said:
The video didn't show cell replication.
secondly if that was 3.5 mins of wasted time...I really pity you.

Well it was the a step in cell replication...though not the entire process.

It's all knowledge I already had...and it wasn't the knowledge that I was expecting. I was expecting the video to explain how the "information" in DNA provided evidence of an intelligent designer. It showed nothing of the sort.

juvenissun · Dec 26, 2015

Freodin said:
Let's take a closer look.

"Because established human theories can only be logical."
Examples for the contrary: conspiracy theories - religions that you do not adhere to - incomplete scientific models that the public 'accepts' - disproven scientific theories...
all of that is / was 'established'.
Some of these are 'logical', but still wrong. Some of these are completely illogical (most conspiracy theories are).

So, first sentence is wrong. Established human theories can be illogical.

We are talking about a religion, which is accepted by millions of people. Except Christianity, which doctrine of a religion is not logical and not reasonable?

Freodin · Dec 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
We are talking about a religion, which is accepted by millions of people. Except Christianity, which doctrine of a religion is not logical and not reasonable?

There are other religions that are accepted by millions of people. And they are all completely logical? There isn't anything in them that is illogical?

That's what I meant earlier: do you really want to go over every single doctrine, every single concept, every single story within every single religion - existent or ancient - to debate whether it is "logical"?

And if you did, and looked at the arguments you made to ascertain that every single thing in this religion is "logical"... can you really say that this same kind of argument does not apply to Christianity?

Let's make an attempt. Give me a reason / instance / example why you think Christianity is not reasonable. Without any explanation. Then I will present you with a example from a different religion. Then you will give me your argument why my example isn't unresonable at all. And then I will turn the tables back on you.

juvenissun · Dec 26, 2015

Freodin said:
Let's make an attempt. Give me a reason / instance / example why you think Christianity is not reasonable. Without any explanation. Then I will present you with a example from a different religion. Then you will give me your argument why my example isn't unresonable at all. And then I will turn the tables back on you.

I can give you several of them. But one first:
The Triune God in Christianity is illogical and unreasonable.

Your turn.

Freodin · Dec 26, 2015

juvenissun said:
I can give you several of them. But one first:
The Triune God in Christianity is illogical and unreasonable.

Your turn.

Nice one.

The concept of deities attributed to specific fields in ancient pagan religions is illogical and unreasonable.

juvenissun · Dec 26, 2015

Freodin said:
Nice one.

The concept of deities attributed to specific fields in ancient pagan religions is illogical and unreasonable.

You need to explain a little to me on that. Do you mean deities such as fire god, thunder god, or sea god?

Question

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

"God"? What do you mean??

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Aggressively serene!

... and God saw that it was good.

Devout believer in a theologically different God

... and God saw that it was good.

Devout believer in a theologically different God

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency