Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by eh! on Today at 03:52:07 AM »
What you heard is a minor part of what people said.
Chatter / Re: 5 Tips to lead a happier life
« Last post by Emma286 on Today at 03:27:09 AM »
Fair enough.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound vague. I'm not a professional and never have been. I'm familiar only tangentially, but still pretty consistently. So my experiences are limited, but have nevertheless affected my opinion. If that makes sense. Also, I tend to navel gaze a lot, so there's that.  ;-)

No worries and understood! Thanks for the explanation. ;)
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question about Islam
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 03:25:37 AM »
I know very little about Islam, but 2 questions occurred to me regarding the covering of females with the hijab.

1) Do Muslims hold to the belief that Allah created humans?  further, that humans are a cherished (pinnacle?) creation, similar to Christian belief?

If that is the case, then who are we humans to cover up half of his glorious creation??

2) Assuming 1 is true, did Allah also not create men and their desires?

If that is true, who are we to stifle those desires with our own artificial coverings?

I know Muslims are a rarity on this forum, but if anyone has any thoughts on these questions, I'd love to hear 'em.

Not sure about the theology but Muslims accept the first five books of the Bible and most of Psalms.  However they believe they have been corrupted so the Koran takes precedence if there is a conflict between the two.
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 03:14:19 AM »
So what I am hearing is there is probably no God because there's no evidence.

So how would you all evaluate this statement:  There probably is no life outside our planet because there is no evidence of it.
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 03:00:20 AM »
Does God exist?  Please explain.

Nope.  Reality does not appear to include an entity with the characteristics generally attributed to the entity that carries the label of the arrangement of letters 'g-o-d'.

Before you were born, did you exist?  In the time period between your death and subsequent resurrection, do you exist?  In the time period between Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection, did Jesus exist?

I do not believe so.  That's for all three.
Do you think you could explain?

Well as far as personal experience, I don't recall existing before that.  There is no scientific evidence that's been discovered that supports the idea, although with science you never know what might be dicovered tomorrow.  Beyond that I have what the Bible teaches.  When a man dies, he returns to the ground.  His spirit (life force) returns to the true God.
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Azdgari on Today at 02:58:01 AM »
Did you just contradict yourself?

Nope.  Pretty sure I didn't.

In the first case, I was saying that yes, if I'm trying to pin down a specific event, then I'll label it specifically.

In the second case, I was saying that every event can be pinned down specifically.

Care to actually respond?

Or better still, how about this.  If you think that I've contradicted myself, then maybe you could explain why you think it's a contradiction?  I put the time and effort into the post in the first place, and all you gave was a dismissive one-liner.  The least you could do is to support that one-liner.
General Religious Discussion / Re: What's you're answer?
« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 02:43:04 AM »
Does God exist?  Please explain.

Please first explain, what is God? Be specific, show your work. Once you have established what God is, we can reply. I will not argue with you about what God is, but I cannot answer your question based on thousands of years of beliefs from billions of people as to the existence of something that has no agreed upon definition.

Okay but I didn't ask if you had seen a reason.  I asked ,"does God exist?"

I am asking if there is a creator and ruler of the universe.

I have seen no reason to think there is a creator and ruler of the universe.
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by eh! on Today at 02:16:34 AM »
The new xian apologetic is triumphalism. The xian assumes they are right because special god knowledge and, and well that's it.

They are annoying as shit  and basically shut down any chance of a shared inquiry. I think its their last gasp, people are already giving up on them....which they interpret as a win.

Baby Jesus weeps.
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by Add Homonym on Today at 02:11:24 AM »
Evolution does not produce beliefs. You are not thinking carefully enough.

Would early humans have been eaten if their intuition was not reliable?

Would they have an evolutionary advantage if they could make predictions and plans about their environment?

I do not know how else to explain it or describe it to you but you clearly are not understanding the argument.

Let me try and illustrate it this way: It has been asserted that theistic beliefs in God and beliefs such as objective God-given morality evolved as features of a survivability function to aid in survival. Theism is claimed to be false. Therefore, a false belief has provided a survival advantage to numerous individuals. That means your belief that theism is false could be a false belief that aids you in survivability…which, in turn, means that everything we believe can be called into question because survivability and reproduction is what natural selection keys on…not truth value.   

Evolution does not produce beliefs

You yourself, in many previous posts, have referred to beliefs as though they are real functions of our brain. Are you now denying that beliefs exist? If you are not denying that beliefs exist and that they are a function associated with the brain and our brains were created by way of an evolutionary  biological process, then please explain how they did not evolve. And please do not just keep repeating that they didn’t evolve because that is an unsupported claim.

Pardon if i rep!y from a tablet, but im pul!ing up the carpet in the study.

There are still two errors in your thinking.
- a belief that if you dislike a naturalistic perspective, that an inverse option of your choice, automatically becomes valid.

- operation from within a presupp bubble. To you, any objection we have, is dismissed, because you know it to be false, from within your presupp bubble. I'm sure this is a great way to run a business, or your own personal affairs, but it's not a convincing way to run an argument. An argument has to be robust, in and of itself, to be a win. In post 473, i gave many other possibilities, but your presupp bubble rejected them. Until you actually disprove them all, the argument is a bust. Thus the argument has unresolved complexity, that is conceptual leakage.
General Religious Discussion / Re: A question for theists
« Last post by BibleStudent on Today at 12:06:37 AM »
Well, then , I have to ask the question:  why do you not refer to each of your breakfast eating  experiences by referring to them as Breakfast_day 1....Breakfast_day2....Breakfast_day3...and so on? You don't because eating breakfast is generally understood to be activity that involves eating breakfast regardless of whether it is technically a one-time occurrence. I mean, since you are compelled to be "nitty gritty" about what happens in the "real world" we should expect to see you referring to your breakfast eating experiences as distinct occurrences.

If I was talking about a specific event in exclusion, then yeah, I would - though I'd probably call it "the breakfast I ate last Tuesday" or something like that.  But if I'm referring only to a specific repeated element - that being the actions we'd interpret as "eating breakfast" - then I can say that plenty of events share that aspect.

And that brings us to my point.  While the Big Bang may have only happened once[1], the components of the Big Bang have the possibility of being repeatable.  Just like although the Earth being formed is definitely a one-time occurrence[2], instances of other planets being formed share enough elements with that occurrence that it's repeatable in its parts.

Repetition-in-part is the key concept I'm driving at here, BibleStudent.  You objected that the standards of repetition and measurability would preclude the possibility of including one-time occurrences as evidence.  And yet one-time occurrences do end up sharing the elements that make them up with the rest of reality in some form or other.  And we can analyze those shared, repeated elements.

Would you find it more suitable if I substituted the words "one-time occurrence" with "specific event?"

Every occurrence can reasonably be described as a specific event.

What you have failed to consider is that those tools may have been the subjects of the evidence. You are correct that they serve as the necessary tools which warrant premises for use in argumentation but, in this case, they would have been the subjects of evidence as well as the tools.

Well, those things are observable materially.  As in, we can physically observe them in action, manifested by physical beings.  They are pieces of physical evidence.  I believe this addresses the rest of your post as well.
 1. It's pretty hard to verify that that one way or the other, mind you.
 2. It's not about to blow up and then re-form, after all.

Did you just contradict yourself?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10