Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your opinion is worthless. It is what you can demonstrate that matters. It it is what you can demonstrate that you know.Left field imo
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your opinion is worthless. It is what you can demonstrate that matters. It it is what you can demonstrate that you know.Left field imo
I am sure it is down there somewhere.....A bar would have made this thread more interesting.
A bar would have made this thread more interesting.
You are a real friend.I'll be the designated driver.
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.Or some that just know the truth imo
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.People that know the truth don’t need to show proof imo. So your statement means nothing
Another left fielderYour opinion is worthless. It is what you can demonstrate that matters. It it is what you can demonstrate that you know.
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 matchesSo 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.
Is that because it doesn't exist? How can anyone end up believing in a supernatual when there is no evidence?Trying to present evidence for the supernatural is idiotic.
We understand believers don't have evidence, it's that they don't realize this means they lose in debate that is interesting.So get use to debate in its raw form when it comes to such matters.
The only loser is the one who keeps debating with that personIs 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 imoIs 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 drumIs 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.
Debates don’t need evidence perhaps maybe a little argumentSo 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.
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?The only loser is the one who keeps debating with that person
Then you had better get over there and answer the questions. Thus far you are being evasive.Your first four sentences are left field imo
False, debate is founded on evidence and argument. You don't seem well informed on this.Debates don’t need evidence perhaps maybe a little argument
This is a borderline Australian comment.A bar would have made this thread more interesting.
AnnoyingWhy 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.
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?
Why are you a member of this forum?Annoying
Nope that is reality. You have "left field' beliefs. You like to pretend that you know but you keep demonstrating that you do not. What you are doing is called projection.Another left fielder
LFNope that is reality. You have "left field' beliefs. You like to pretend that you know but you keep demonstrating that you do not. What you are doing is called projection.
Not to talk to people like youWhy are you a member of this forum?