Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
By that reasoning, perhaps our definitions for all words are in fact wrong. Because by removing the "supernatural" aspect from the concept of "? "; it becomes objectively disprovable, observable, and measurable. At which point the burden proof falls squarely upon those claiming the concept exists.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
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", than "the internet" is not technological.".
Defeats the purpose of words having meanings.
perhaps our definition that "? " is in fact supernatural is wrong
Perhaps "pigs" aren't mammals because our definition for "pig" is also wrong; it's a slippery slope b. -
I dislike these topics now because which ? are we talking about? Which book are we saying isn't correct? What is a ? ? How can you say something isn't real if you don't even know what it is you're saying isn't real? Pertinent questions need to be answered before you can question the rest.
-
Bambi YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!! Go back to the depths of darkness from which you inhabit and reside till the age of time passes YOU FOUL BEAST OF IDIOCRACY!!!
-
-
I agree with the OP, there is a time and place for everything. The worst thing that could happen would be to force people to go along with a religion...... again. However, the article is poorly written. it's like the person that wrote it took as many cliche's as they could find and wrote a rebuttal on it. They seem to not be following any text or any foundation or they spent a sunday in Creflo Dollars building. I'm no bible thumper but proverbs 29, 15 clearly spell out the "rod of correction" in no part does it say tell your kids to be good because a ? is watching.
-
Godzilla the GOAT.. "Simon Says" >>>>..
-
Is it so hard to ignore someone that you don't want to read their posts? Trolling? Aggravating? Skip their ? , brutal.
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
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.
Now this is trolling. -
I dislike these topics now because which ? are we talking about? Which book are we saying isn't correct? What is a ? ? How can you say something isn't real if you don't even know what it is you're saying isn't real? Pertinent questions need to be answered before you can question the rest.
My thoughts exactly! -
Is it so hard to ignore someone that you don't want to read their posts? Trolling? Aggravating? Skip their ? , brutal.
To some that is a huge HELL YEAH! They are emotional folks so if you go against their beliefs (SHOCKS like any religious believer they don't like) than they are going to go crazy about it. -
@kai_valya.....
I see you broke your bury posts that make you look stupid virginity as well.......
Internet tough guy......
You would like to ban me wouldn't you??????
Even if you did you cannot erase the ether I poured on your dizzy ass..........Oh great, Bambi is here.
/thread
@VIBE.....
This stupid ? should be in the R&R or donkey anyways you square-head bastard......Ajackson17 wrote: »Bambi YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!! Go back to the depths of darkness from which you inhabit and reside till the age of time passes YOU FOUL BEAST OF IDIOCRACY!!!
And @Ajackson17.....
I already ethered your ? .....
You must have forgot ? ......
I can jog your memory.....
-
Ah, the presuppositional arguments.
Looks like Eric Hovind's argument -
Im not religious but human beings are way too complicated in the way we are made for it to be purely evolution. Something created us, I stop short of the whole ? and Religion thing, but something created the template for what we are.
You and your argument for personal increduity.
Everything that happened was random, we're not special, evolution isn't goal oriented, we weren't created and humans are far from perfect.
This is why science is needed without it, mannnn
-
The religion u subscribe to is irrelevant ...
-
You're still moving the goalposts by changing the definitions b.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
By that reasoning, perhaps our definitions for all words are in fact wrong. Because by removing the "supernatural" aspect from the concept of "? "; it becomes objectively disprovable, observable, and measurable. At which point the burden proof falls squarely upon those claiming the concept exists.Gold_Certificate wrote: »
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", than "the internet" is not technological.".
Defeats the purpose of words having meanings.
perhaps our definition that "? " is in fact supernatural is wrong
Perhaps "pigs" aren't mammals because our definition for "pig" is also wrong; it's a slippery slope b.
the definition is wrong because our understanding is wrong. and when it is the bolded, science is then "? " which works for me
In the bolded you're calling one definition wrong, and with the underlined you're redefining the word.
What's the point of you using the word "? " if you're not referring to what it's defined as or if you're referring to something else such as "science"? -
Shuffington wrote: »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...
Hardly... i can care less what the next man believes or not but when u try to push beliefs no matter what they may be onto the next man i have problems with that especially when ur logic is flawed -
Bambi is the type to get riled up and mad cause no one wants to believe in his religion that he created from egyptian, hebrew, bablyonian, persian, christianity, islam, greek, etc. He worst than a street preacher, he comes up when he is not wanted and doesn't want to go back to his hell in which you will go if you believe in any ? that comes out of his fingers.
-
You wack the weirdest ? Five.
-
Gold_Certificate wrote: »
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.
Horrible example... my actions prove that my actions are only being controlled by me -
@CopperKing
We are humans we can criticize or question anything we want.
The same way you make fun of homosexual or trannies but
When it comes to ? , we need to fall back? Lol, GTFOH -
So you're saying that because there is no proof that Godzilla is controlling your every action and desire, the claim that he is controlling you is false?CopperKing wrote: »Gold_Certificate wrote: »
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.
Horrible example... my actions prove that my actions are only being controlled by me -
-
Atheist ? disgust me, if you don't believe in ? that is your choice. Now go sit in the corner and suck your thumb or something, why the ? are you writing books, articles and posting your trash all over the place. There exist no logical reason for atheist to do this other than trying their best to ? off believers.
Atheism is on the list of things that are destroying western society, which may be a good thing. But atheist are so ? annoying. just shut the ? up already , atheism does nothing it inspires nothing it creates nothing. it seeks to strip man of religion but has nothing comparable to replace it. -
Internet tough guy......
You would like to ban me wouldn't you??????
Even if you did you cannot erase the ether I poured on your dizzy ass..........Oh great, Bambi is here.
/thread
This stupid ? should be in the R&R anyways you square-head bastard......
i think you meant ditzy @ the bolded lol
i bought you a biology textbook for the winter solistice celebration
No stupid ? .....
I meant dizzy.....
As in: Bewildered or confused..........
Why you burying posts???????
I possess a masters of science degree........
So I wont be needing your used community college books........ -
Atheist ? disgust me, if you don't believe in ? that is your choice. Now go sit in the corner and suck your thumb or something, why the ? are you writing books, articles and posting your trash all over the place. There exist no logical reason for atheist to do this other than trying their best to ? off believers.
Atheism is on the list of things that are destroying western society, which may be a good thing. But atheist are so ? annoying. just shut the ? up already , atheism does nothing it inspires nothing it creates nothing. it seeks to strip man of religion but has nothing comparable to replace it.
LOL @ "let believers believe and express themselves" but not allowing non-believers to do the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwsWskgKe5E
This discussion has been closed.