Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
Have u ever text'd a friend "? !" ?
-
The Prodigalson wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »whether u believe in ? or not u gotta admit the argument that he doesnt exist because bad things happen and we cant see him is a pretty weak stupid argument...
You mean likes chemo patients being cured of cancer and it's a miracle from ? even though they under went chemo therapy?
why would it be considered a miracle if the cure in this example can be perfectly explained through chemotherapy? -
if u use logic alot of things in the bible arent logical but its about an all powerful being (if one did exist wouldnt he defy all logic)...plus it was written and re-written by manCopperKing wrote: »whether u believe in ? or not u gotta admit the argument that he doesnt exist because bad things happen and we cant see him is a pretty weak stupid argument...
I can agree that it is, if it is your only reasoning. If you can include other reasons, then I can see a point being made.
My reasoning is simply ? itself doesn't make sense, if you use logic on any ? , especially the bible ? , it cancels itself out.
-
Where is your proof of the mind existing?? None you say? Then it does not exist.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »plus they real as ? at my church...
one of the Reverends said some ? one day that i'm positive is a rap lyric... she was on some
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
I guess its to be orderly but it does sound like sit down baby maker, that is your primary job in life. That seems lifeless.
if you just single out this verse and ignore everything else, then yeah, you have a point. -
The Prodigalson wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »whether u believe in ? or not u gotta admit the argument that he doesnt exist because bad things happen and we cant see him is a pretty weak stupid argument...
You mean likes chemo patients being cured of cancer and it's a miracle from ? even though they under went chemo therapy?
why would it be considered a miracle if the cure in this example can be perfectly explained through chemotherapy?
Because anything good ? has a hand in. You know this. -
So getting back to the "why I don't raise my children on ? ", is his reasoning good? Is it not?
-
He said "? "; which is a supernatural concept:Gold_Certificate wrote: »
His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard
"An atheist is someone who is certain that ? does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of ? . I know of no such compelling evidence..."
Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.
he didn't say anything about supernatural, if the laws of the universe are "? ", the universe is not supernatural. my whole point is, faith is doubt (i know that sounds like one of the phrases from animal farm) and what you choose to make it, at least that's how it is for me. i don't think this is an issue you come to a conclusion on and move on, for me it's a lifelong kind of thing, that is riddled with doubt and questions
i'm not even sold on the realness of ours or anythings existence to be honest. and i find the more i learn the more i realize how much i don't know.
If he was referring to the laws of the Universe, there was no need to use the word "? " in the first place.
That's no better than saying "If this oxygen atom is 'the internet', then 'the internet' is not technological.".
Defeats the purpose of words having meanings. -
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I actually said the opposite of this b:Ajackson17 wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard
"An atheist is someone who is certain that ? does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of ? . I know of no such compelling evidence..."
Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.
My reasoning stands correctly and Carl Sagan stands because all you are saying is you have proof of your beliefs in which you don't because you can't see it. Your logical fallacies are showing. All in all is that we don't know because we can't approve or disapprove ? exists. Until we can actually travel through hyperspace and know what is there to know about the universe we wouldn't have the capacity to express such a belief is actually true.Gold_Certificate wrote: »His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.
Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.
Unscientific claims are untestable, so there will never be any proof for or against them.
So the claim that "supernatural" beings exists has the same weight as the claim that a giant objectively unobservable\unmeasurable teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars; which has the same weight as any other unscientific claim.
You said it's "arrogant" to dismiss such claims; if so, it is also "arrogant" to consider anything to be "false" or "true".[/quote]
That's my whole damn argument man!! >:P
We know the supernatural doesn't exist that everything has laws and there is order in everything, we don't know all the laws that are in place, but we do know the universe functions on LAWS, but we don't have enough information on every anomaly, etc as of NOW to say if we can say a deity actually exists or not. That's all. You are not FIAT! -
Keep your race, religion, politics, and sexual preference at home all that ? needs to be taboo. i'm all for an agnostic society... I saw a bumber sticker the other day that said "that obama sticker on your car might as well say 'yeah, I'm stupid'" I support no politician but I wanted to beat the ? out of that person just based on their arrogance.
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Sure they are yo.CopperKing wrote: »I dont think the human race is advanced enough to be saying for a fact if omnipotent beings exist or not....we still rage war against one another over money and religion
The only thing supporting the claim that "supernatural" beings exist is the claim that "supernatural" beings exist.
If humans applied such circular reasoning to everything, they'd have to be agnostic about an infinite number of claims that others come up with.
If ur not certain of a certain things theres nothing wrong with saying ur not certain..theres something wise in being agnostic instead of feigning proof of non existence -
Ajackson17 wrote: »plus they real as ? at my church...
one of the Reverends said some ? one day that i'm positive is a rap lyric... she was on some1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
I guess its to be orderly but it does sound like sit down baby maker, that is your primary job in life. That seems lifeless.
if you just single out this verse and ignore everything else, then yeah, you have a point.
Lol, yeah you are right. -
therefore one cannot say he does or doesnt for a factShuffington wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »
if there is a supreme being wouldnt he be incomprehensible to us?
Your providing the answer before you even provide the question.
-
So getting back to the "why I don't raise my children on ? ", is his reasoning good? Is it not?
No, it's better than a lot of other reasonings, but the main point is that he should be truthful about his beliefs to his child and allow them to understand its up to them to find their own beliefs and ideology and guide them within a safe zone, cause an ideology that preaches erdication of human beings isn't a helpful ideology for us lol -
So getting back to the "why I don't raise my children on ? ", is his reasoning good? Is it not?
whoever wrote it, in my opinion, doesn't understand enough about the religion so it really makes no difference as far as the reasoning. He doesn't seem to grasp the concept. Its like he's trying to use math teach the kid that 2 + 2 =5. -
@VIBE
Why are you CONSTANTLY making the same " i dont believe in ? /Jesus thread"? Ok bruh we got you... You were once a believer, now you're now.. Your kids want to know and believe, SO LET THEM!.. Drop them off of Kids church/bible study. Dont let your doubt and disbelief cloud your kids judgement.
Stop tring to convince people that ? aint real... If I wanna belive, let me do that...
There shouldnt be an announcement thread EVERY week, because to me its OBVIOUS that you're struggling. Deep down you wanna believe but you continue to fight...
Its like YALL get mad when folks believe and talk about ? ....
It like if we all go to a buffet, I decide to get grilled lima beans..Would you announce to the wholre resturant that IM eating something that YOU dont like or you feel is nasty??? No... you eat want you want, let me eat what i want; EVERYBODY IS HAPPY!
now re-read it, but in ALL CAPS
-
@kai_vayla that man isn't Fiat, he is under a gold currency and the real fiat would never subject himself to be under a system that has boundaries.
-
perhaps our definition that "? " is in fact supernatural is wrong
Shut the ? up dumb ? .............
Learn how to ? read before you make comments.....
-
CopperKing wrote: »
therefore one cannot say he does or doesnt for a factShuffington wrote: »CopperKing wrote: »
if there is a supreme being wouldnt he be incomprehensible to us?
Your providing the answer before you even provide the question.
lol
I can say that about a lot of things.... Trust... its a whole lot of ? that doesn't exist .... I'm not holding out hope for it...lol. I'm more concerned about real life problems.
Also... my life is not built on me NOT believing in ? ...
because I dont care to even consider NOT BELIEVING in a ? .. see what I'm saying.
but I gather your just hung up on the term "ATHEIST". That seems to strike a cord with you.
Which is normal cause people seem to swallow my lack of beliefs when I dont use the "A" term...
-
DROSODAMFUNNY wrote: »@VIBE
Why are you CONSTANTLY making the same " i dont believe in ? /Jesus thread"? Ok bruh we got you... You were once a believer, now you're now.. Your kids want to know and believe, SO LET THEM!.. Drop them off of Kids church/bible study. Dont let your doubt and disbelief cloud your kids judgement.
Stop tring to convince people that ? aint real... If I wanna belive, let me do that...
There shouldnt be an announcement thread EVERY week, because to me its OBVIOUS that you're struggling. Deep down you wanna believe but you continue to fight...
Its like YALL get mad when folks believe and talk about ? ....
It like if we all go to a buffet, I decide to get grilled lima beans..Would you announce to the wholre resturant that IM eating something that YOU dont like or you feel is nasty??? No... you eat want you want, let me eat what i want; EVERYBODY IS HAPPY!
now re-read it, but in ALL CAPS
@DROSODAMFUNNY,
This is my first thread since last Oct or Nov about ? .
It's not about whether or not he exists, it's to why someone raises their child without a ? in their lives.
My kids do go to church, they do so because everyone else does. I know I went because they did when I was little, and like me, they'll be able to make a logical decision later in life. They probably go twice a month, plus it's good for them to get out and meet othe people and enjoy different activities.
I've gotten past it.
Why does one need to announce their belief in ? ? Because they want to? Same goes for those who have different beliefs or non belief in ? .
-
Oh great, Bambi is here.
/thread
-
Agnostic is a question of knowledge, not belief.
We don't know but it's not probable for a ? to exist
I'm a man of probability.
Atheist lack a belief in a ? , they don't claim gos doesn't exist. -
? you......
Scumbag ? .......
I know I sound intelligent........
Must be why you are in my threads getting ethered and burying my ? ??????
You cannot hide the flames your little mokey ass is caught up in.......... -
If that's your whole argument, then that's the reason I said it was "poor reasoning"; because subscribing to such reasoning also makes it "arrogant" to say that ham exists or that unobservable giant horseshoe ? don't exist.Ajackson17 wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
I actually said the opposite of this b:Ajackson17 wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.i think carl sagan said it the best i've ever heard
"An atheist is someone who is certain that ? does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of ? . I know of no such compelling evidence..."
Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.
My reasoning stands correctly and Carl Sagan stands because all you are saying is you have proof of your beliefs in which you don't because you can't see it. Your logical fallacies are showing. All in all is that we don't know because we can't approve or disapprove ? exists. Until we can actually travel through hyperspace and know what is there to know about the universe we wouldn't have the capacity to express such a belief is actually true.Gold_Certificate wrote: »His argument fails because the claim of the "supernatural" is an unscientific one. So by the very nature of the claim, evidence can't be compiled for or against it.
Such claims don't automatically get a status quo of "true" or "valid" simply because someone comes up with them.
Unscientific claims are untestable, so there will never be any proof for or against them.
So the claim that "supernatural" beings exists has the same weight as the claim that a giant objectively unobservable\unmeasurable teapot orbits the sun between Earth and Mars; which has the same weight as any other unscientific claim.
You said it's "arrogant" to dismiss such claims; if so, it is also "arrogant" to consider anything to be "false" or "true".
That's my whole damn argument man!! >:P
We know the supernatural doesn't exist that everything has laws and there is order in everything, we don't know all the laws that are in place, but we do know the universe functions on LAWS, but we don't have enough information on every anomaly, etc as of NOW to say if we can say a deity actually exists or not. That's all. You are not FIAT!
The underlined substantiates my argument, since the concept of "? " is a "supernatural" one. -
So humans are to be agnostic when it comes to any one of the infinitely-many conceivable concepts that other humans can create?CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
Sure they are yo.CopperKing wrote: »I dont think the human race is advanced enough to be saying for a fact if omnipotent beings exist or not....we still rage war against one another over money and religion
The only thing supporting the claim that "supernatural" beings exist is the claim that "supernatural" beings exist.
If humans applied such circular reasoning to everything, they'd have to be agnostic about an infinite number of claims that others come up with.
If ur not certain of a certain things theres nothing wrong with saying ur not certain..theres something wise in being agnostic instead of feigning proof of non existence
If I say "Godzilla exists and he rules the world from the shadows, controlling your every action and desire; and you can't prove he doesn't.", then is it unwise to rule out such a claim?
If anything, it's wise to rule out fantastical claims lacking in any form of proof or provability.
This discussion has been closed.