Community >> View Post
Post By
Ancient One 

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,924
In Reply To

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
Subj: Re: LGBD, please clarify this dispute
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 at 03:22:05 pm EST (Viewed 205 times)
Reply Subj: Re: LGBD, please clarify this dispute
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 at 02:17:23 pm EST (Viewed 200 times)

    And if the dictionary said a transwoman was a woman, it's *the* evidence to make it true?

Indeed no. But if it's supported by other forms of evidence, there's a damn good chance of it being true.

    I didn't ignore anything. I read what you wrote. At one point, you even said there's a scientific basis to support that astronomers understand religion more than evolutionary biologists. So, that's what I'm dealing with here.

No. I posited that as a question, and said my question is based in good science. I made it clear that the studies show that astronomers and physicists tend to be LESS RELIGIOUS than medical and biological scientists. And that has been borne out in many studies over the last few decades.,believe%20in%20a%20universal%20spirit%20or%20higher%20power.

    Omnipresent and omniscient - pretty much how everyone else understands what "God" means despite lame attempts to redefine and erase these two characteristics.

That's only ONE narrow definition of god. None of the people who thought Odin or Zeus were omnipresent or omniscient. But they were still gods to those that worshipped them. Even the author of Genesis didn't hold that view (God leaves the garden, returns, and has to call Adam and Eve because he doesn't know where they're hiding).

    1) That's not true. To them, there's nothing supernatural since everything that exists in the universe is natural. They don't believe that we discovered everything natural yet. So, if there's a Zeus-like 'god' in a galaxy far, far away, they would consider him natural but unbeknownst.

Then what's it all FOR? If they believed that a universe is a nothing more than a natural event, why bother to tack god on to it?

The pantheist in the quote even used the term 'divine Presence'. Do you think the universe has a divine presence? No? Well, THEY do.

    2) A Zeus-like 'god', unless he's omnipresent and omniscient, is not "God". We're debating whether they believe in "God", not "gods". Remember?

Nicely moved goalposts. We were debating whether they believe in the supernatural or not.

    Which does not counter a single thing I've argued. They still don't believe in an omnipresent and omniscient being.

    They don't believe in "God". Capital G. We all have a basic understanding of what "God" means. Take Star Trek 5, for example (which I know you've seen). Why did Kirk doubt that the god was God? Because he understands exactly like I do.

There's your error right there. We don't all have the same basic understanding of the definition of a god. The Christian definition of god is different to that of the Hindu or a practitioner of Shinto.

You're basically saying that unless a concept of 'god' adheres strictly to YOUR definition, then it doesn't count. But once again, you're wrong.

If you engage with someone who has a different belief than yourself - a strongly held belief - then it's okay to debate with them on where you think their belief is wrong, or where you think your belief is a better one. That's fine.

But to insist that they don't actually believe what they actually believe is both presumptuous and arrogant.