Reply With Quote
What is the evidence you are correct?
I think I understand that mess of a post.
It's like saying you have faith that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Sure you have evidence, but evidence doesn't mean accuracy.
Amirite
What is the evidence you are correct?
St. Nicholas was a real person. Santa Claus is a representation of St. Nicholas and is meant as symbol of his deeds. It is hilarious how you are so blind to use ing Santa Claus. Lololololol!
Ministers who claim to be correct don't even know if they are or not. Sounds like a faith statement. Sure you have "evidence," but evidence does not always mean accurate.
Frankly when I compare Abrahamic proselytization to what this thread whines about, it makes me laugh.
Are you really going to act obtuse to how the Romans coopted Gothic traditions for the winter solstice to make up Christmas as the day Jesus was born?
Nebuchadnezzar was a real person who invaded Jerusalem and Jews were enslaved in Babylon. That does not mean the story of Shadrach Mishak and Abendego is true. You can try to baffle people biblical scholarly bull if you want but it's not going to work. I know more in depth that the Baptist grade school interpretation.
Science has been wrong before. Science also doesn't explain everything. Therefore, saying you don't believe in god(s) means that you have faith that science is indeed correct.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Both believers and non believers are basing everything on faith. If you are truly logical.... you would be agnostic.
God is not probable, or god is probable are the correct statements.
A believer recognizes their faith. Atheists tend to refuse to acknowledge their own. So those closer to rationality tend to be the believers who recognize their own faith.
What is the evidence that your belief in God is correct?
People who believe in god have been wrong before.
Science is set up for previous assumptions to be proved wrong and the new discoveries incorporated into general knowledge -- how does religion deal with being proved wrong over and over again?
False equivalence. The "faith" is in the scientific process that tends to eliminate stupid stuff people should not believe in. Over time, it gets things more right than before. What is wrong with that?
What's the difference between someone saying Santa Claus is magical vs Jesus being magical
Was this a scientific study?
The process has come up with the wrong solution before. So wouldn't it be stupid to believe that the method always produces a 100% correct answer?
God is probable, and God is not probable are the only acceptable answers. Neither you nor I can justify whether we are 100% accurate as both of us require faith.
There is nothing wrong with believing that god doesn't exist, just the same as there is nothing wrong with believing one does so long as you recognize your faith. If you do not recognize your faith, you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
There have been numerous explanations that there could very well be some truth within the Bible historically. Of course I understand that this statement is one based on faith. Do you understand yours?
Does it require faith to believe a round square does not exist?
What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Why are you forcing someone to pick a side to avoid being "an idiot"
There is no reason to believe in your god. The probability of Bible God and of the major religions is zero.
False claim. No one ever said the method produces a 100% correct answer. Infallibility is god talk.
Nope. Science doesn't require anything really. The resulting facts simply are what they are. If more facts show up to disprove what came before, it's adopted into the knowledge base. What do religious people do when their faith is proved wrong?God is probable, and God is not probable are the only acceptable answers. Neither you nor I can justify whether we are 100% accurate as both of us require faith.
lol you're trying to say the absence of faith is faith. that's idiotic.There is nothing wrong with believing that god doesn't exist, just the same as there is nothing wrong with believing one does so long as you recognize your faith. If you do not recognize your faith, you are an idiot. Plain and simple.
Of course you won't say what "truths" you're talking about in the bible. It's what people of faith do.There have been numerous explanations that there could very well be some truth within the Bible historically. Of course I understand that this statement is one based on faith. Do you understand yours?
Absence of faith? You use the process of science to say god has zero probability.
You also know that the method can produce incorrect answers. So how do you KNOW that it hasn't produced an incorrect answer? Leaving zero margin for error using a system that has proven capable of being incorrect means that you have faith in the system producing a correct result.
Absence of faith my ass.
I also don't need to show the truths in the bible because you must have researched it yourself in order to discredit it. You know where the truths are, just don't want to give them any relevance because you open the door to possibility.
Faith isn't used solely for believers btw.
Faith - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So your faith is placed in scientific method.
Why do you keep posting things I never said?
Is your faith so shaky that you have to lie about anyone who doesn't share it?
your faith in straw men is commendable.You also know that the method can produce incorrect answers. So how do you KNOW that it hasn't produced an incorrect answer? Leaving zero margin for error using a system that has proven capable of being incorrect means that you have faith in the system producing a correct result.
Absence of faith my ass.
lol the real truth is you are afraid to even discuss it. It's fine; people of faith usually are. You simply want to state your belief and have it be accepted by everyone without question.
Tough . Your faith should be stronger than that, but the religious always seem to reach a point where they just shut down discussion.
My trust in the scientific method is in no way complete; because the method is carried out by fallible men.
I'm fine with it because religious faith ultimately wants to put the kibosh on serious inquiry at the point where it makes the religious and their leaders uncomfortable. And that's just stupid.
I'm using logic, not science, to deduce that bible god does not exist.
You're using all sorts of logical fallacies here fwiw
I don't recall referencing you specifically. You weren't quoted.
So how do you deduce something doesn't exist using fallible methods?
Oh and Blake, I don't respond to you because chump and fuzzy are easily your betters as they can keep up.
Lol. I'll sit back and watch them abuse you then with a dose of lols every time they make you look stupid.
So long as you know your place little one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions