tas8831
Well-Known Member
So the actual answer to my question:
"Can you show a 'truth' about the natural world that was derived via religion?"
is a resounding NO.
Thanks!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science cannot solve the final mystery
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
So the actual answer to my question:
"Can you show a 'truth' about the natural world that was derived via religion?"
is a resounding NO.
Thanks!
tas8831
Well-Known Member
No it isn't.
It is an assertion.
I have no idea what you mean by this made-up nonsense.
Is that what you call actual science, as opposed to your "If I can fantasize about it, it must be TRUE!!! " fake science that you peddle?
Not as surprised as I am that you never present any of this evidence, just a bunch of repetitive assertions.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Yet you linked to his crankery.
Great.
You wrote this in May on another forum (and similar pap here):
"Survival of the fittest" (by any name at all) becomes a rallying cry for those who would suppress or attempt to control the masses. "
You truly do not know what that phrase means, and you appear to have no desire to correct your error.
Why is that?
I won't even mention your folly on "broccas area". Why the pretense? Why is humility to hard for so many creationist types?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Why do you believe that this even occurred?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
That is like the 3rd of 4th time that he has denied something he did. Seems to be a bit of trend among creationists on here to do this sort of thing.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
cladking
Well-Known Member
I DID NO SUCH THING.
If you actually had followed the link rather than ASSUMED it was crankery you mightta learned something. It's not likely because you can't believe something that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
Fortunately Hancock does not need my support but the fact is he can be very insightful and this is irrelevant to the link, my post, and every point I've made.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Apparently it's not necessary to even read something to know whether it's true or not.
This is ironic since Egyptology is no LONGER ALLOWING PEERS TO SEE THE DATA before they hold a vote on what it means!
The King as Pyramid - Graham Hancock Official Website
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Did it solve the starting mystery, please?
Regards
Still citing an unqualified person, Graham Hancock, you denied citing to support your argument. What gives?!?!
Nothing here about your claim I made unwarranted assumptions. Virtually everyone claims to believe in science even those who do not believe evolution and an ancient earth more than billions years old.
OK you believe in God.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief
Rogue Theologian
It's simple
regression is the arrow of time in reverse
Someone had to be First
and all you CAN do...….is THINK about it
cladking
Well-Known Member
You're kidding, right?
You aren't going to open the link are you? Rather than give a cogent argument against what is said you'll just stick to your guns that nothing Hancock says can be real.
You probably can't see what is there anyway since it is far too far outside your beliefs.
The following are assertions that are not simple and without context.
Odd. Explanation needed
A philosophical/theological claim. By the evidence no one has to be first.
I hope we can do better than that. It would turn us into vegetables that do nothing.
I do not make unfounded assumptions of your beliefs. I do challenge the content of your posts and nothing beyond that. Absolutely nothing beyond that.
Last edited:
I have read the link and have known about Hancock for a long time. He does not even have any knowledge nor education background in hieroglyphics nor Egyptology. He is a rank ameteur.
I have no beliefs in this case that are inside nor outside my beliefs, I emphasize academic standards and competence, which Hancock lacks,
I am a scientist and I believe that all objects and objective phenomenon are best studied by application of scientific method only.
This thread is to try to raise awareness that indeed there are eminent physicians who place the subject, the self, as a different category from the objects.
So, esteemed Max Planck says that the ultimate mystery is 'ourselves' that science cannot solve. Who will know the knower? Who will see the seer?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
your denial as taken a turn for the worst
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you won't?...….ever?