Numbers are not quality.Thanks for your opinion. All the tousands views say otherwise.
Have a good one.
-
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!
Atheists and their jargon of insults
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
The Tousands....oh, how their tongues wag.Thanks for your opinion. All the tousands views say otherwise.
Have a good one.
Last edited:
Comparing God with leprechauns ... another of those veiled insults from evolutionists. 
I think that a person who spends so much time using and inventing new ways of using fallacies does not have time to realize reality. It is useless to try to reason with people who spend themselves on such things.
I think that a person who spends so much time using and inventing new ways of using fallacies does not have time to realize reality. It is useless to try to reason with people who spend themselves on such things.
No one is insulting leprechauns
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Evolutionists believe that an ape gave birth to a human being. Sounds like magic to me.
And the moon is somehow suspended above the Earth.... MAGIC!
ps: I LOVED your comprehensive and thorough portrayal of evolution.
Altfish
Veteran Member
The trouble is (to us non-believers) there is no evidence of this 'power and intelligence'. Thus to our minds we treat this as 'magic', if you can give me evidence to convince me you are not relying on magic, I will consider it.When those of us who believe in a Creator talk about the origin of things, we are alluding to power and intelligence in action.
When evolutionists talk about things appearing on their own, aren't they talking about magic?
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Sure.When those of us who believe in a Creator talk about the origin of things, we are alluding to power and intelligence in action.
When evolutionists talk about things appearing on their own, aren't they talking about magic?
No evolutionary biologists talks about "things appearing on their own."
You perhaps are referring to the "free lunch" hypothesis in cosmology. That theory is by no means widely accepted. Plenty of opponents to be found among established scientists.
Easier to criticize if one avoids understanding it.
Your religion teaches you to be offended by that. It's a perfectly apt comparison, and if you had a rebuttal as to why it's inappropriate to equate those two unevidenced claims about unseen creatures, you'd have given it rather than deflecting to your feelings. The skeptic has no duty to avoid offending you when he is discussing such matters. You can either learn to get over it or just be offended.
Did you see the thread where somebody was telling the other posters there that he was offended by the term "drinking the Kool-Aid" claiming to have known someone who knew someone who had died at Jonestown? He was told the same thing. Get over it or go on being offended, because he's going to hear the phrase over and over just as you'll see skeptics pointing out that gods have no more supporting evidence that leprechauns not to offend you, but because the statement is correct and relevant to them.
This is another area where the faithful are taught to be offended. Many are offended being called an ape, being told they descended from extinct apes, or that they are an animal.
And then there are those offended by transsexuals and abortion. They're trained by their religions to think that way. Humanists including theistic humanists aren't offended by such things even when they consider them sin. Most theistic humanists accept the science and reject the bigotries that so many zealous believers stumble over.
That is a problem, but not for unbelievers and even for many believers, who haven't been trained to think like many believers do. The limits of one's imagination don't define nature's limits. And to conclude that something didn't happen because one can't conceive how it could have happened is a classic incredulity fallacy.
You also can't conceive of how a god could exist or how one could create a universe if it did exist, but that doesn't stop you from believing both of those ideas.
Also, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion, and with it came increasing order and complexity as the primeval substance cooled and organized itself into filaments of galaxies of solar systems comprising the elements that eventually formed rocky planets and moons with oceans and then life.
Yes, they are ideas with no external referent, like werewolves, assuming that werewolves don't exist. Ideas about real things are ideas about existing referents, like wolves.
So what are the qualities of real things that imagined things don't possess? What are the chief differences between wolves and werewolves, for example. They're both ideas, but I'm not referring to the idea, but rather, to that which the idea refers. I'll give you a chance to think about that before seeing my answer:
To be real is to exist somewhere in time and space and to affect and be affected by other real things. Ideas are real, but their referents are not necessarily so. The idea of a wolf exists and so do wolves. That word has a real referent. A wolf can exist over there right now and affect you and you it. Werewolves aren't. The idea of a werewolf exists, but you won't find any anywhere ever as best we know.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
The problem for us, believers, is that we can't conceived a beutiful world as a result of an explosion.
The Big Bang isn't an explanation of WHY the universe exists in the first place. It is a history of what happened following the moments that the early universe was in a very hot, infinitely dense state.
One could, if they were so inclined, posit that God is the one who put the infinitely hot dense thing there in the first place. And that (perhaps) God oversaw the expansion and cooling of the universe that transpired which eventually resulted in the universe we observe today.
In fact I've known many theists who have conceived of things happening in such a way.
Not all theists... just the honest ones... or the ones who studied astronomy. It's perfectly acceptable for Christians and other theists to accept the big bang theory as generally true. I don't think you speak for all Christians, Eli.
Human beings have a Father... animals and plants have a Creator. If you understand the difference then you will know how a human being is distinguished from the rest of the earth's creation.
PS: Any supposed atheistic explanation of the origin of the universe is just philosophy. Who told philosophers that they are scientists?
PS: Any supposed atheistic explanation of the origin of the universe is just philosophy. Who told philosophers that they are scientists?
Clarifying my position: I never said that the BigBang was not a reasonable explanation for the origin of the Universe... however, from the theist's point of view, the event was purposeful and intelligently directed throughout.
There is a big difference between this BigBang perspective and the atheist perspective, which proposes the origin of a world as beautiful as ours from a blind explosion, without laws, without direction, etc.
There is a big difference between this BigBang perspective and the atheist perspective, which proposes the origin of a world as beautiful as ours from a blind explosion, without laws, without direction, etc.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Unreal things only have one explanation: imagination.
Do you ever say anything that isn't a strawman argument?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Nah, guy's just a random troll
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How is that an insult? That you cannot defend your God against this supposed insult except to stamp your foot and protest works against you.Comparing God with leprechauns ... another of those veiled insults from evolutionists.
I think that a person who spends so much time using and inventing new ways of using fallacies does not have time to realize reality. It is useless to try to reason with people who spend themselves on such things.
It is your belief, it is your burden of proof. "I am offended" is not a refutation.