-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
tigertime2 said:
Considering you quoted jayfox's reply to my comments I suppose you're referring to me as a Mindless Matter Bully...whatever one of those happens to be. All I can say to you comment in ignorance and probably wouldn't have a clue about the mind games certain people go on with behind the scenes on PRE. It's one thing to preach to others but it seems an entirely different matter to practice it.
rosy23 said:
Quite right Rosy - I have changed the post. I certainly do have no idea what goes on behind the scenes at PRE.
The Genesis statement is a statement of belief, not a statement of science. This is precisely the case with Sagan's assertion as well. He is expressing a personal belief that emanates from a world view, rather than science. When we ask ourselves whether science has sounded the death knell of God, we are really asking: "Which world view does science support, naturalism or theism?"
This is entirely wrong. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the evolution of species and therefore contradicts many of the details of theistic religions but it doesn't make comment either way on the possibility of there being a creator.
How do people get this crap past editors anyway?
This is entirely wrong. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the evolution of species and therefore contradicts many of the details of theistic religions but it doesn't make comment either way on the possibility of there being a creator.
How do people get this crap past editors anyway?
Disco08 said:
Really? someone does not think like you so they should be censored?? REALLY? It is wrong in your eyes Disco, but not obviously to many many others including the Professor who wrote the article from Oxford.
It's not wrong in my eyes tigertime, it's simply wrong. If you disagre, tell me how scientific evidence can support either theism or naturalism.
BTW, you seem to post very emotively - lots of capitals, over-use of exclamations and smileys etc. Do you have trouble discussing this topic calmly?
BTW, you seem to post very emotively - lots of capitals, over-use of exclamations and smileys etc. Do you have trouble discussing this topic calmly?
tigertime2 said:
Why don't you try addressing Disco's criticism? The passage he quotes leapt out at me as well. The Genesis statement makes no claims about the natural world? Please.
Appeals to authority will get you nowhere. Lennox just rehashes tired, old creationist (Christian) arguments. His position is irrelevant.
Panthera tigris FC said:
His position is irrelevant to the Athiest - of course. You know my view very well. Sure I appeal to the highest authority - The Living God.
tigertime2 said:
Incorrect.
You posted a quote and celebrated with multiple :clap. Disco pointed out a passage in the article you quoted that was clearly false, he didn't disregard it out of hand.
Yet you can't even point out the problem with Disco's position. Instead you resort to preaching. Why do you even bother?
Panthera tigris FC said:
See, I agree. This is what I pointed out last week and although you (tigertime) thanked me for it I really don't think you've taken much notice of what I said.
As I said previously, if you want to preach then make a new thread. If you make it clear what the thread is intended for you won't be interrupted. If you want to actually join in the discussion then please at least make an effort to address the points being discussed, particularly if you are the one that raises them in the first place.
