Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?

[Godobeyer]

Theism is not the same as creationism brother.

This is first time I heard this !

I do believe theism is believing in Creator and creation."God/Gods".

Top religions of world believe in creation.
What is theism religion don't agree with creation concept ?

It's the first time I've met someone who doesn't understand what I say so often.

Because you always create bifurcation, don't use direct answsers .

I said creation of human, and design....etc, you repeated what others said " earth flat" !

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What is theism religion don't agree with creation concept ?

Mine.

 

[Godobeyer]

Mine.

As I know Satanic religion don't have religion book as reference for laws/rules , so how do you know for sure?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As I know Satanic religion don't have religion book as reference for laws/rules , so how do you know for sure?

I don't really identify as a Satanist, but I can wear that hat if you like.

I have mythologies I'm partial to and none of them say that some transcendent deity created everything. The Cosmos emanates and sustains itself. The Gods are immanent within the Cosmos, not transcendent of it. Transcendence of the Cosmos is illogical since the Cosmos is all that exists. It's the totality of everything.

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't really identify as a Satanist, but I can wear that hat if you like.

I do ignore what religion you are now !
You make me laugh btw

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do ignore what religion you are now !
You make me laugh btw

 

[Kirran]

This is first time I heard this !

I do believe theism is believing in Creator and creation."God/Gods".

Top religions of world believe in creation.
What is theism religion don't agree with creation concept ?

I would refer you to cyclic understandings of the universe.

Because you always create bifurcation, don't use direct answsers .

I said creation of human, and design....etc, you repeated what others said " earth flat" !

Nobody else seems to think this. I may use an example to illustrate a point I am making, but that is as far as it goes.

 

[viole]

I discovered that my body could not created it self.

Do you think the Ebola virus created it self?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Godobeyer]

I would refer you to cyclic understandings of the universe.

In creation of universe we don't share the same view. but we do believe it's created in end.
I don't show the details. as you try to do.

You did not answser my question :
what are theism religions don't support creation ?

Nobody else seems to think this. I may use an example to illustrate a point I am making, but that is as far as it goes.

I think like this , when I made general idea believing in "Creator/creation" Vs Atheism, so it's anyoning and high dishonest to go to details,by show your disagreement about creation or Creator to different religion old concepts."flat earth" , because now the Christians don't believe that earth is flat.

 

[Godobeyer]

Do you think the Ebola virus created it self?

Ciao

- viole

No ,it's probably medicaments companies.

 

[Kirran]

In creation of universe we don't share the same view. but we do believe it's created in end.
I don't show the details. as you try to do.

You did not answser my question :
what are theism religions don't support creation ?

Religions which hold to a cyclic nature of time and yet are theistic, for example. I've basically said this a couple times, you haven't understood me.

I think like this , when I made general idea believing in "Creator/creation" Vs Atheism, so it's anyoning and high dishonest to go to details,by show your disagreement about creation or Creator to different religion old concepts."flat earth" , because now the Christians don't believe that earth is flat.

The point was regarding the democratic nature of truth, or lack thereof.

 

[viole]

No ,it's probably medicaments companies.

Do medicaments company create deadly viruses in places where people cannot afford cures?

Is that another instance of stupid design, or what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Godobeyer]

Religions which hold to a cyclic nature of time and yet are theistic, for example. I've basically said this a couple times, you haven't understood me.

I am said also most of humanity are beleive in creation/Creator: GENERAL CONCEPT,not in details , but you don't understood me.

The point was regarding the democratic nature of truth, or lack thereof.

Nature of truth is you try to declining my general idea to disctinction of beliefs in creation/Creator, to represent that even the theism are in distinction,or had some past errors interpretation of their beliefs, which was not my point.

 

[Godobeyer]

Do medicaments company create deadly viruses in places where people cannot afford cures?

Is that another instance of stupid design, or what?

Ciao

- viole

It's not my claim, but I heard about that before, I do believe humans are damage this world by produce DMW and diseases by drug companies. and also done by dirtness and polution.


http://www.westernjournalism.com/u-s-government-patented-ebola/

Same as PC anti-virses ,and Virsus.

 

[Kirran]

I am said also most of humanity are beleive in creation/Creator: GENERAL CONCEPT,not in details , but you don't understood me.

Yes. You said that theists were inevitably creationist, so I pointed out an exception. That exception being religions and philosophies which hold to cyclic understandings and yet are theistic. There are other exceptions too, in particular in relation to many polytheistic traditions.

Nature of truth is you try to declining my general idea to disctinction of beliefs in creation/Creator, to represent that even the theism are in distinction,or had some past errors interpretation of their beliefs, which was not my point.

You said the majority of people believe in creation as if it has some kind of bearing on it being correct. I commented in refutation of this. That is all.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes. You said that theists were inevitably creationist, so I pointed out an exception. That exception being religions and philosophies which hold to cyclic understandings and yet are theistic. There are other exceptions too, in particular in relation to many polytheistic traditions.

What are exceptions? are they effective on the majority whom believe in creation ?

You said the majority of people believe in creation as if it has some kind of bearing on it being correct. I commented in refutation of this. That is all.

Now majority : of the Christians nor the Jews believe in flat earth, nor Muslims nor others religions (theists) aslo.
I don't know why you made that point out the creation concept was wrong in past.(earth flat).
Despite you agree with creation and Creator !

I do believe it's was malice that you said that,to please the others !

 

[Kirran]

What are exceptions? are they effective on the majority whom believe in creation ?

Nope. But they do rather put paid to your thinking that all theists are creationists.

Now majority : of the Christians nor the Jews believe in flat earth, nor Muslims nor others religions (theists) aslo.
I don't know why you made that point out the creation concept was wrong in past.(earth flat).
Despite you agree with creation and Creator !

I do believe it's was malice that you said that,to please the others !

You may believe that, as you seem to like believing I'm malicious and dishonest, but that's not the case.

All I said that for was to make the point that whether a majority of people, a minority of people or no people at all believe something doesn't have a bearing on whether it is true.

 

[Shad]

nothing creates itself is fact.

No it isn't as we have not discovered everything in the universe.

I discovered that my body could not created it self.

Which is a single observation. Single observation does not create a fact for all things unobserved.

Second that called believe,I just try to explain it to you nothing more,why should convince the world about my beliefs?

I am attacking your argument as it is unsound.

You did not answer my question by clear way,why should I discover everything,despite I believed that I am created ?

You have not discovered everything in the universe thus to claim nothing created itself is a gross misstatement based on your error. You do not even use logic you just make claims out of thin air.

I did provide a clear answer, you just never bothered to actually look up the terms I was talking about. This is your problem, not mine. I never said you couldn't believe you weren't created I said you can not claim nothing creates itself for the reason above.

 

[Shad]

Yes, it is easy to call up irrelevance. Thinking that opposing that the human body was designed by a creator is okay (by the side of those saying the body was not designed by a creator), but thinking that arguing the claims saying there are errors in the logic behind it as irrelevant (by the side of who says the body was designed by a creator) is ignorance, gullibility, irrationality, lack of common sense, and not knowing what one is talking about. An academia that allows this, does not even deserve to be called academia. The former side (in red above) think they refuted that the body was designed by a creator and come up with philosophies for it. Doing that does not necessarily prove anything. Some sides keep complaining why other sides don't like arguments, but when they face it, they don't like it. They need to chill.

There is an error in logic as we were talking about the watchmaker analogy which is a logic based argument. This argument contains fallacious points thus is unsound hence why the argument is taught as a lesson so students can learn how to spot errors as it has many. This is not an opinion but a fact of logic. You need to chill, sit back then actually look up the topic I was talking about. Until you do so your opinion is moot.

 

[Smart_Guy]

There is an error in logic as we were talking about the watchmaker analogy which is a logic based argument. This argument contains fallacious points thus is unsound hence why the argument is taught as a lesson so students can learn how to spot errors as it has many. This is not an opinion but a fact of logic. You need to chill, sit back then actually look up the topic I was talking about. Until you do so your opinion is moot.

It's okay, just as you think/claim so, based on simply mentioning names of some philosophies with some related nerdy terminologies believing they are the true answers. I'm having the exact same thought about your opinion and view. Don't let it bother you so much to make you worked up.