When Dawkins says its "child abuse" to raise a child Catholic...

I do think science can prove 100% validity of most things necessary to determine basic facts of our existence. I think the lack of proof for God, and the necessary emphasis on philosophical theory that is itself rather shallow points to, at the least the inconsequential nature of God and at the very most the reality of God's nonexistence. I do personally find concepts of God fall most hard on issues of morality. Hence in part why I'm an apatheist.

Interesting. I had a similar experience, though in the reverse order. But yes, I am interested in your experience, if you're happy to share it.

And now you're a theist?

 

Generalities have advantages? You're joking, surely?

Can you define what you mean by "generalities man"? I have never heard such a phrase uttered positively.

My point is that Blackrook believes all Muslims are terrorists and doesnt care one iota for freedom of religious expression or freedom from persecution - he only cares about making sure no Christians, of his preference, are ever treated badly or insulted in any manner. Muslims, Jews and anyone else he doesnt like can go to hell - moderate or otherwise.

You're 'peacemaking' is coming awfully close to 'defending blackrook'.

 

My favorite, the universe as a child then a spermie then the egg then the...ahhh' better stop ! Serisoully the early universe and what was going on is a constant

I would first try to get you comfortable with deism by discussing how the universe began. Then I would introduce you to the KCA (see link) and the logic that goes with it. You can stop reading and skip to the links, because the this gets long and it only covers the first part of how I would brainwash.... er' get you right with jesus! First I would intro you to deism then to Christanity, thats because if you can not accept that a creator God can exist well what use is it to try and convert you to christanity, besides I am getting sleepy and getting sloppy and making mistakes... its near 5am and I have to day sleep to fix my jet lag....

I would try something like this; I would ask you where the universe came from? As a scientist you would probably say about 14b years ago the big bang created the universe. I would then ask you to speculate as to what happened 'before' the big bang. You would probably not comment because many scientiests, near all secular scienctiests dont consider those type of questions meaninful and are reluctant to comment. I would nag on like asking you; how the universe began to exist without a cause ? Huh? Causality dictates that for every thing that begins to exist there was a cause for its existence or a preceeding event for an event at least in the phyical universe. Then I would discuss the fourth dimention time or spacetime because time was created in the big bang. That begs a question. What caused the universe to begin to exist? Remember time is created After 'cause' caused the universe to begin to exist or what made the big bang, 'bang' be atemporal (not effected by time, eternal would qualify). I would continue along that line, asking questions like; 'What is eternal and can cause a universe to begin to exist'? It takes a long time to change entrenched ideas, but I would go over my favorite evidences, those that make the most sense etc. Of course anyone can get spirtural but I think some of us May have an actual genetic predisposition to accept and understand spiritual phenomenon and processes etc, who knows?

notes;

*.....Causal Premiss of the Kalam Argument | Reasonable Faith
www.reasonablefaith.org/causal-premiss-of-the-kalam-argument - Cached - SimilarYou run the Cosmological argument as follows ... I think that the principle ex
nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing nothing comes)is as certain as anything in
philosophy ...



reva

 

I find the causal argument meaningless for two reasons:
1. it allows for any being to be responsible for the creation of the universe - any God or Gods are possible. Furthermore, it is itself not conclusive and leaves open the possibility of there being no creator. Thus, since that is all essentially inconsequential, we have to ask
2. what other reason there might be to believe and follow God and that would be his ethical principles that command specific action. This is the one respect that we should consider since it is substantial - it is known and can be tested. And when we do test it, we find the morals of all religions are wanting.
We find in the case of the more pertinent question, are the morals of God right, a more interesting arena to debate the importance of God and other supernatural beings. In so dong we find such morals lacking and illogical, and thus God as entity, concept and influence is meaningless and pointless.

 

I was going to take you seriously but now that I am actually adressing you logically you refuse to answer questions and make stupid comments like the one above to avoid them

Utterly pointless

 

Have you ever seen a fundy argument that was not dishonest?

 

aint you the one said that the level of proof of guilt in court is enuf for god?

A scientist of course understands that while objectivity is an ideal and not perfectly achievable, one has to try his utmost.
A scientist understands the easiest person to fool is yourself.
A scientist understands that wanting to believe is the enemy of good research.

Xtianity makes a virtue of doing the opposite. You find that admirable.

And after 20 years looking for "truth" you think that ToE is a crock and that scientists talk about "falsifying" a theory.

 

Sure,they have just been brainless.

I think the problem is that in fundiville Biblebeltistan the preacher is the most intelligent guy there is and he is just about capable of rote learning bible verses in Bible school so their arguments are at a pretty low level. They can;t see through the dishonesty or stupidity of it.

 

Thread closed ~ Post capacity