Community >> View Post
·
Post By
FreeKyle

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
Ancient One 
Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,924
Subj: Re: LGBD, please clarify this dispute
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 at 04:14:27 pm EST (Viewed 187 times)
Reply Subj: Re: LGBD, please clarify this dispute
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2022 at 03:22:05 pm EST (Viewed 206 times)



    Quote:
    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.


https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20poll%2C%20just%20over%20half%20of,believe%20in%20a%20universal%20spirit%20or%20higher%20power.


Your question was: "Perhaps astronomers are better at understanding religious thought than evolutionary biologists?"

And so, *head scratch*, because astronomers (and now you're commingling physicists) are LESS RELIGIOUS than medical and biological scientists (which is a bigger scope than just evolutionary biologists), astronomers are perhaps better than evolutionary biologists at understanding religious thought?

Whuwhaaaaaaaaaaat?


    Quote:
    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).


The people in Roman times thought the world was flat, that they lived in a dome, and that the gods ruled above the dome. Their understanding of the universe wasn't even solar system size, it was planetary! So, relative to their understanding, these small handful of relatively all-powerful gods collectively created everything.

And your Adam and Eve story is another face palm. You're claiming that God had to call out their name because he didn't know where they were, yet knew of their sin: that he wasn't playing dumb when he asked where they were. *Chuckle*


    Quote:

      Quote:
      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.



    Quote:
    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?


Well duh, that's why they're so stupid and what I've been saying this whole time.


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


They think it's both divine and natural. In other words, like I've been trying to tell you, it's all gibberish because it's a contradiction! They are stupid and unworthy to be taken seriously. You wouldn't listen to a crazy person's rationale, would you? So why are you listening to what pantheists say? They don't believe in "God", it's all just smoke and mirrors.


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


They don't believe in the supernatural. Everything in the universe is natural to them, known and unbeknownst. And if they believe in 'magic', it would be natural and something we haven't learned enough to not call it magic.


    Quote:
    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.


Unless these Shintos believe that their natural (not supernatural) "god(s)" are universal in scale than some planetary Zeus-like god; and have conscious, then they don't believe in "God": the Alpha and the Omega, the Supreme Being, the First and the Last, the all-powerful, the all-knowing, and the infinite.

And if scale doesn't matter, then even the rock in my front yard can be "God". And if you agree that this is preposterous, then maybe you'll finally join me and admit that my position is the most rationale: that pantheists don't believe in "God" and are too irrational to be taken seriously.


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software