This is not about whether or not he was the son of God but whether he actually existed.Most atheists agree that he did live but there are some who don't so what are you're thoughts?
I mean which is the one that is the deciding factor? Which one is the first you check?
when something happens i pray first, use science later. I pray to god to help if he can. I believe that my praying saved on of my cousins from a near fatal car accident. Then i look at science and probability.
But at the same time it is foolish to disregard my thoughts as rubbish since they are conclusions from months of brainstorming and experience. I cant cite my thoughts
That is great that you have such thoughts--it demonstrates your open-mindedness, a rare trait amongst those that have some feats of religious values. As they are thoughts, however, so are they opinions. They may show some merit, but to debate, you debate with evidence. You can "argue" as much as you want about anything. Debating deals with a thesis, evidence to support the thesis, and supporting details to support the evidence.
What i am saying makes complete sense if you allow it to.
What we have been pointing out, Slimmyfeet, is that it doesn't. At all. And for precisely this reason:
Of course i cant provide evidence considering that religion is thought and not hard facts. Science has that on its side. But at the same time it is foolish to disregard my thoughts as rubbish since they are conclusions from months of brainstorming and experience.
You are demanding recognition of your personal opinions which are based on an unproven hypothesis and the result of your personal thought process, nothing more. Of course we are going to disregard that because it has no merit. We heard your opinion, we presented opposition and evidence which makes your opinion, at best, highly unlikely, and at worst completely impossible. Yet you refuse to look at hard evidence, at facts, simply because you value the result of your personal brainstorming.
This is the most egocentric display of hubris and ignorance I have had the displeasure of having to speak against in some time. It rings of misinformation, insufficient evidence, and outright speculation and yet you want educated people to dismiss facts in light of your opinion. I cannot see how any rational person could find this to be a logical position to hold.
MRWalker, I know that you don't have to be nice in this forum, but it's a given that you can't be rude
Please, where have I been rude? Offended, yes. Vehement, yes. However I have not stooped (in my opinion) to rudeness. I wish I could say the same about our young opponent in this discussion.
What i am saying makes complete sense if you allow it to. Of course i cant provide evidence considering that religion is thought and not hard facts.
Something that has shown to be contradictory, inaccurate, and corrupted does not make sense to hold up as fact. If there is no evidence to back up your claims then your claims will be dismissed as nothing more then assertion.
But at the same time it is foolish to disregard my thoughts as rubbish since they are conclusions from months of brainstorming and experience. I cant cite my thoughts
Considering all of this is just from you sitting and thinking about it than all your presenting are your thoughts. I really don't care how long you spend thinking about it or what personal experiences you've had. If you can't back up your claims they are inadmissible.
This is the most egocentric display of hubris and ignorance I have had the displeasure of having to speak against in some time. It rings of misinformation, insufficient evidence, and outright speculation and yet you want educated people to dismiss facts in light of your opinion. I cannot see how any rational person could find this to be a logical position to hold.
Must i say this again? I have made correlations between science and religion. The stardust thing is true yet you seem to overlook it. The point i am trying to get across is that bible stories arent complete rubbish. Simply becuase it is a religious book doesnt make the stories in it false, therefore rendering the whole book as false. In that sense, you are being rude and are discriminating my religion.
Honestly I think Walker is fine right now, I mean this, from what I can gather, is a rather heated debate, and he thinks he is right. Such spirited responses from his opponent merit some vehemence, methinks.
@walker. You should be careful, you're starting to sound a lot like slimmy.
is that a bad thing? to not be trusted just because i am pushing the boundaries? I am stating my opinion and just because it contradicts yours doesnt mean it should be tossed aside.
The stardust thing is true yet you seem to overlook it.
MRWalker didn't overlook--he refuted.
[quote=MRWalker82]Umm.. stardust is not dust, sorry. Technically speaking, the 'stardust' of which we are made are simply individual elementary particles which can only be created through the fission in the heart of a star, and are only released when that star goes supernova.
To quote Lawrence Krauss "Every molecule in your body came from a star, and the molecules in your left hand probably came from a different star than the molecules in your right. ... Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that you could be here today".[/quote]
I am stating my opinion and just because it contradicts yours doesnt mean it should be tossed aside.
It is being tossed aside because your are not backing it up.
Please, where have I been rude? Offended, yes. Vehement, yes. However I have not stooped (in my opinion) to rudeness. I wish I could say the same about our young opponent in this discussion.
where have i been rude? answer this please.
Considering all of this is just from you sitting and thinking about it than all your presenting are your thoughts. I really don't care how long you spend thinking about it or what personal experiences you've had. If you can't back up your claims they are inadmissible.
Well as you and i have both stated, i cant prove religion with facts. You and i both know that and its sad that you have to resort to a sucker punch move to prove me wrong.
actually it's nutmeg. :P Seriously I must have downed a gallon of eggnog with nutmeg so far this month.
Must i say this again? I have made correlations between science and religion.
Yeah and we have only your word to go on with that. Then expecting everyone to ignore facts in favor of your assertions which is whats getting you called egocentric.
Simply becuase it is a religious book doesnt make the stories in it false, therefore rendering the whole book as false.
The high number of contradictions and how much of it doesn't match the facts at hand does that rather nicely.
I am stating my opinion and just because it contradicts yours doesnt mean it should be tossed aside.
It's being tossed aside because your not offering anything to back it up.
Must i say this again? I have made correlations between science and religion.
Many people have done this slimmy. They have also been shown to be wrong, or at the very least standing on a very thin position. Every area in which the Bible has attempted to make claims about science it has been shown to be wrong. Certainly some passages could be construed to appear similar, and you can take it that way if you like. However that is not proof of anything whatsoever.
The stardust thing is true yet you seem to overlook it.
I did not overlook it at all. In fact I directly responded to your equation of our composition of molecules only derived from stars, and the passage in Genesis about man being made of dust. However the proper term would be sand, not dust, and it's "of the earth", not "of the stars". Logically one cannot make a conclusive correlation between Genesis and Cosmology.
The point i am trying to get across is that bible stories arent complete rubbish.
I never said that they are. However in the areas where they attempt to delve into the realms of the sciences they have been shown to be inaccurate at best, and completely false at worst.
Simply becuase it is a religious book doesnt make the stories in it false, therefore rendering the whole book as false.
I don't dismiss the entire book as false, and especially not simply because it is religious in nature. What I do is compare what is said in the Bible with what we know about reality. In those areas that can be compared there are obvious falsehoods, misconceptions, discrepancies, and contradictions.
This brings into question the validity of the entire book, in my mind, because an inerrant book would not contain such things. If I cannot discern clearly what is intentionally incorrect, and what is accidentally incorrect, then I cannot accurately base anything solely on the content of it's pages.
In that sense, you are being rude and are discriminating my religion.
If pointing out where you are wrong is rude and discriminatory then I highly suggest you ensure that you are never incorrect, because there will always be someone to point out your mistakes. I have been fortunate enough to have such people around me all my life, which has helped to drive my thirst for knowledge, as well as help me correct myself when I am mistaken. If only we all were so lucky.
