Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

Kamwah said:
Ok, whatever. I'm out, I don't need to explain the whole Bible to someone who just wants to spout crap.

Just Atheists wanting to argue and make themselves feel big.
Click to expand...

Dude I can't help it if the bible provides such ammunition. You choose to blindly follow a book that you don't even know who wrote it, when they wrote it or for what purpose.

Then you claim it is factual but then its not in the same breath its allegorical. Then we are stupid for not studying it and looking for meaning hidden within the pseudo factual allegorical account.

Then we are talking crap for pointing out line by line inconsistencies in the book.

I'm confused but I'll go back to my first post in this thread. It is impossible to have a debate with a religious person because they are unwilling to flex in their view and will be offended if you challenge it.

Thanks for proving me correct
 
The Running Man said:
Dude I can't help it if the bible provides such ammunition. You choose to blindly follow a book that you don't even know who wrote it, when they wrote it or for what purpose.

Then you claim it is factual but then its not in the same breath its allegorical. Then we are stupid for not studying it and looking for meaning hidden within the pseudo factual allegorical account.

Then we are talking crap for pointing out line by line inconsistencies in the book.

I'm confused but I'll go back to my first post in this thread. It is impossible to have a debate with a religious person because they are unwilling to flex in their view and will be offended if you challenge it.

Thanks for proving me correct
Click to expand...

To be fair, Kamwah's given pretty calm polite post's up to that point, while you've been reletively hostile.
Plenty of people don't agree with religion but don't feel that they have to force there views on others. It's fair to discuss conflicting points but people aren't going to want to discuss them if you call them stupid.
 
But they are insistent that the book has some credence or that they are actually debating.

You can't debate with a religious as I've said, they can only regurgitate the book - the book has no ceddenxe but because they insinuate that the book is 100 % authorititve no meaningful discussion can even take place.

If they could accept this premise we'd be maybe we wouldn't have a 17 page thread.

If we could have a 'discussikn ' where the book as a source is omitted then we could perhaps go somewhere but the book is fundamental to their viewpoint yet the. Took is not a credible record of events itself SK effectively you have a steadfast belief in something that is unreliable . You tell me what debate can be had about that?
 
Because by discussing you don't need to convert them from their beliefs, they have chosen what they believe in.
What you can do by discussion is question individual points and see what their point of view is. We may not agree with it but the discussion can still occur.

Yes it can be frustrating as normally for every answer you get there are more questions raised, some times you just have to take a step back and let it be as it's their choice what to believe as long as they aren't causing harm to others as an individual, and forcing our views on others would make us little better than organised religion.
 
Urgannagru said:
I really like the last point, god may be infalliable but man isn't so how can you be sure your faith in god is right. Circular logic but still a different way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

Robosapien said:
That's like asking how much faith do you have in your faith, which is kind of redundant since by definition faith is complete trust or confidence. As demonstrated by the idiot in the video who so stubbornly won't admit/succumb to any doubt.
Click to expand...

I don't think a circular or redundant argument is being made by Matt Dillahunty there. I think the subtle difference he's trying to get across is that 'evolutionists' (as Ray Comfort call everyone but creationists) know they COULD be wrong and would be willing to change their mind if new evidence came up whereas Comfort would never change his mind because he's already made his mind up and no amount of counter evidence will ever change that.

Scientists don't have presuppositions, Fundamentalist Christians do. Scientists accept what the evidence shows until something else comes along and proves that evidence wrong, creationists accept the word of God and willfully ignore anything to the contrary (or bend it so it can still be compatible with their principle view).
 
The Running man, you say God does not exist. I say prove it. You say you don't have to prove it just like all the other atheists. Essentially, you're a bigot. If I went to the scientific community and said 'Dark matter does not exist', they would ask me to prove it. You're making a statement which you claim is fact, and therefore you have to back it up with proof.
 
estebanrey said:
I don't think a circular or redundant argument is being made by Matt Dillahunty there. I think the subtle difference he's trying to get across is that 'evolutionists' (as Ray Comfort call everyone but creationists) know they COULD be wrong and would be willing to change their mind if new evidence came up whereas Comfort would never change his mind because he's already made his mind up and no amount of counter evidence will ever change that.

Scientists don't have presuppositions, Fundamentalist Christians do. Scientists accept what the evidence shows until something else comes along and proves that evidence wrong, creationists accept the word of God and willfully ignore anything to the contrary (or bend it so it can still be compatible with their principle view).
Click to expand...

You can't be that naive surely? Or perhaps it's ignorance as to what really happens in the science labs?
 
He says scientists don't have presuppositions, when in fact they do. Take the gay gene for example, scientists absolutely believe this exists and go looking for it. This is a presupposition, since there is no evidence whatsoever that would even suggest a gay gene.
 
Jason2 said:
The Running man, you say God does not exist. I say prove it. You say you don't have to prove it just like all the other atheists. Essentially, you're a bigot. If I went to the scientific community and said 'Dark matter does not exist', they would ask me to prove it. You're making a statement which you claim is fact, and therefore you have to back it up with proof.
Click to expand...

Jason2, you say evolution does not exist. I say prove it. You say you don't have to prove it just like all the other theists. Essentially, you're a bigot. If I went to the scientific community and said 'Dark matter does not exist', they would ask me to prove it. You're making a statement which you claim is fact, and therefore you have to back it up with proof.
 
Haggisman, so you don't believe you have to prove the non-existence of God? Surely if you make a statement which you claim is fact then you have to prove it? As for me proving God, well, I really don't need to. It's a faith based system. I believe God exists. You say "God does not exist". You're saying that statement is true for both you and me. Absurd!

Also, in regards to Dark Matter, scientists can't see it yet believe it exists. Bit of hypocrisy from your camp doncha think?
 
Jason2 said:
Or perhaps it's ignorance as to what really happens in the science labs?
Click to expand...

4sbeaq.jpg


Jason2 said:
He says scientists don't have presuppositions, when in fact they do. Take the gay gene for example, scientists absolutely believe this exists and go looking for it. This is a presupposition, since there is no evidence whatsoever that would even suggest a gay gene.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between a presupposition and a hypothesis?
 
Last edited:
Jason2 said:
The Running man, you say God does not exist. I say prove it. You say you don't have to prove it just like all the other atheists.
Click to expand...

Because you're claiming something does exist. The burden of proof is on you.

Jason2 said:
Essentially, you're a bigot.
Click to expand...

Essentially, you're imagining persecution that isn't there.

Jason2 said:
If I went to the scientific community and said 'Dark matter does not exist', they would ask me to prove it.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't. They might ask you to refute the evidence that they have which points to the existence of dark matter, but as previously stated they make the claim therefor the burden of proof is on them.

That's why they're trying to prove it.

Jason2 said:
You're making a statement which you claim is fact, and therefore you have to back it up with proof.
Click to expand...

Said the pot.
 
Raikiri said:
Because you're claiming something does exist. The burden of proof is on you.



Essentially, you're imagining persecution that isn't there.



No, they wouldn't. They might ask you to refute the evidence that they have which points to the existence of dark matter, but as previously stated they make the claim therefor the burden of proof is on them.

That's why they're trying to prove it.



Said the pot.
Click to expand...

More irony from you! Keep it up fella! You claim God does not exist. You are making a factual statement. You have to back this statement up with proof. I cannot say dark matter does not exist. It may well, it may well not. But if I was to say it absolutely does not exist I would have to offer proof. Why can't you see this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom