• 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!

Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

F1fan

Veteran Member
Or some that just know the truth imo
So it is your opinion that others might think they know the truth? The way to know truth is by having facts and a coherent explanation that is also consistent with other explanations. Religious truth never fits this definition. Even truth in Islam is different than truth in Christianity, and neither can show either are actually truth. So if you as a religious person has found the "truth", and it is ideological, not knowledge, then you have dogma that is your truth, and isn't truth for anyone else.

People that know the truth don’t need to show proof imo. So your statement means nothing
If they live in their own bubble, you are correct. But if they join a debate forum and make claims to the community, then they have entered into an agreement to follow the rules of debate and discourse. Many believers want to ignore these rules and spout their beliefs as if absolute. They often run into the rules of the forum that don't allow this. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence and an argument. If you have none, then you lose by default.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
So it is your opinion that others might think they know the truth? The way to know truth is by having facts and a coherent explanation that is also consistent with other explanations. Religious truth never fits this definition. Even truth in Islam is different than truth in Christianity, and neither can show either are actually truth. So if you as a religious person has found the "truth", and it is ideological, not knowledge, then you have dogma that is your truth, and isn't truth for anyone else.


If they live in their own bubble, you are correct. But if they join a debate forum and make claims to the community, then they have entered into an agreement to follow the rules of debate and discourse. Many believers want to ignore these rules and spout their beliefs as if absolute. They often run into the rules of the forum that don't allow this. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence and an argument. If you have none, then you lose by default.
Trying to present evidence for the supernatural is idiotic. So get use to debate in its raw form when it comes to such matters. Not all debates are long drawn out 500 comment, nonsensical, delusional, obsessive and sad ego matches
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Trying to present evidence for the supernatural is idiotic.
Is that because it doesn't exist? How can anyone end up believing in a supernatual when there is no evidence?

Children don't believe in Santa Claus because there is evidence, they believe because they are told he exists and they believe. How are theists different if there is no evidence?
So get use to debate in its raw form when it comes to such matters.
We understand believers don't have evidence, it's that they don't realize this means they lose in debate that is interesting.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Is that because it doesn't exist? How can anyone end up believing in a supernatual when there is no evidence?

Children don't believe in Santa Claus because there is evidence, they believe because they are told he exists and they believe. How are theists different if there is no evidence?

We understand believers don't have evidence, it's that they don't realize this means they lose in debate that is interesting.
The only loser is the one who keeps debating with that person
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Is that because it doesn't exist? How can anyone end up believing in a supernatual when there is no evidence?

Children don't believe in Santa Claus because there is evidence, they believe because they are told he exists and they believe. How are theists different if there is no evidence?

We understand believers don't have evidence, it's that they don't realize this means they lose in debate that is interesting.
Your first four sentences are left field imo
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Is that because it doesn't exist? How can anyone end up believing in a supernatual when there is no evidence?

Children don't believe in Santa Claus because there is evidence, they believe because they are told he exists and they believe. How are theists different if there is no evidence?

We understand believers don't have evidence, it's that they don't realize this means they lose in debate that is interesting.
Hum drum
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
So it is your opinion that others might think they know the truth? The way to know truth is by having facts and a coherent explanation that is also consistent with other explanations. Religious truth never fits this definition. Even truth in Islam is different than truth in Christianity, and neither can show either are actually truth. So if you as a religious person has found the "truth", and it is ideological, not knowledge, then you have dogma that is your truth, and isn't truth for anyone else.


If they live in their own bubble, you are correct. But if they join a debate forum and make claims to the community, then they have entered into an agreement to follow the rules of debate and discourse. Many believers want to ignore these rules and spout their beliefs as if absolute. They often run into the rules of the forum that don't allow this. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence and an argument. If you have none, then you lose by default.
Debates don’t need evidence perhaps maybe a little argument
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The only loser is the one who keeps debating with that person
Why didn't you answer my question? Are you one of these people that I shouldn't debate with because you don't answer questions?

Your first four sentences are left field imo
Then you had better get over there and answer the questions. Thus far you are being evasive.

Debates don’t need evidence perhaps maybe a little argument
False, debate is founded on evidence and argument. You don't seem well informed on this.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Why didn't you answer my question? Are you one of these people that I shouldn't debate with because you don't answer questions?


Then you had better get over there and answer the questions. Thus far you are being evasive.


False, debate is founded on evidence and argument. You don't seem well informed on this.
Annoying
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
If intelligent man was around for 100,000 years or so, why did he not figure out how to drop a seed in the ground and farm?

It's worth looking at this in a less theologically loaded way.
Are you familiar with the substantial discrepancy in time it took relatively stable societies in the Middle East versus the Americas to move from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles?
What do you attribute this to?

It's worth looking specifically at the protein content of available, farmable crops compared to the ease of hunting as a substantive indicator of when a society would shift from nomadic to sedentary farming as a core concept.

There are other important considerations, including security requirements versus stability, but if this is actually a topic you're interested in, rather than just a gotcha game, I'd recommend someone like Camilla Townsend as pretty interesting.
 
Top