Evolution not God

[Dimi95]

Why would anyone but a fool believe anything they say?

Yes , i understand your position

I avoid to use such terms but if it makes any sense on how i would agree , they can not see it because it goes against their understanding of reality.
It seems to me that how this universe came to be is more important in oposite of what faith in God means.I mean at least from a Christian point of view since there are many among Christians who stand behind some apsurd ideas.
I have tried here to reason with few members but what can i do.. maybe at the end we differ on how we belive in God.

 

[Audie]

Yes , i understand your position

I avoid to use such terms but if it makes any sense on how i would agree , they can not see it because it goes against their understanding of reality.
It seems to me that how this universe came to be is more important in oposite of what faith in God means.I mean at least from a Christian point of view since there are many among Christians who stand behind some apsurd ideas.
I have tried here to reason with few members but what can i do.. maybe at the end we differ on how we belive in God.

Fair enough.
Nobody knows if there is a God, how much
less what he happens to like.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evolution not God

Neither evolution is against G-d nor G-d is against evolution, please, right?
G-d created the humans with the process of Evolution, right, please?

Regards

 

[Dimi95]

Fair enough.
Nobody knows if there is a God, how much
less what he happens to like.

Not if you seek for evidence.I seeked as you probably 'seek'(or maybe expect?) now and did not find it at the end as you don't see them now (probably) , and that's fine.
But then i realized that evidence does not mean proof and things changed.

This is common answer among Christians who were at some point in life Atheists.
Lately Richard Dawkins debated former Atheist and now a Christian Ayaan Hirsi Ali.It is very obvious in what she says as her expirience.

I wonder if Richard Dawkins would become one...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not if you seek for evidence.I seeked as you probably 'seek'(or maybe expect?) now and did not find it at the end as you don't see them now (probably) , and that's fine.
But then i realized that evidence does not mean proof and things changed.

This is common answer among Christians who were at some point in life Atheists.
Richard Dawkins debated former Atheist and now a Christian Ayaan Hirsi Ali.It is very obvious in what she says as her expirience.

I wonder if Richard Dawkins would become one...

Well, I became a skeptic and give up on evidence and proof as well.
So I wonder if you will become a skeptic?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, I became a skeptic and give up on evidence and proof as well.
So I wonder if you will become a skeptic?

Are the skeptic ever skeptic of their own Skepticism, please; had they been they won't have remained on it, please, right???!
They become skeptic without using an impartial Methodology, one must say, right, please?

Regards

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are the skeptic ever skeptic of their own Skepticism, please; had they been they won't have remained on it, please, right???!
They become skeptic without using an impartial Methodology, one must say, right, please?

Regards

I don't play this game with you anymore.

 

[Dimi95]

Well, I became a skeptic and give up on evidence and proof as well.

So I wonder if you will become a skeptic?

Does 'skeptic' mean to give up what you mentioned?

And what does it mean for a person to be skeptic?I understand 'skeptic' as a 'person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.'

The questioning is very obvious,but what is that that we expect at the end to be the answer?

I have focused myself on History and the New Testament Scholars and published opinions.

It became very obvious what is highly plausible and what is not.Well , at least the ones that are honest and don't do the deflection part.

Once i asked someone , why can't everyone just find the Jesus that we belive in.And he told me 'Because they are looking for the Jesus of Christianity'.And Christianity is not everywere the same.Then i said ,'They might ask, 'Ok,so how do we know that Orthodoxy is the right one?' How should i answer that ?,and he said to me:'They don't need to belive our Orthodoxy , they just need to seek the Jesus of Nazareth , not the 'common' Jesus of Christianity' and they will find what came after.

If i were not an Orthodox Christian i would've probably stayed in disbelief or maybe Agnostic at best.

I had to read a lot of data to be able to narrow the choices.

But each of us with his own journey..

 

[Audie]

Not if you seek for evidence.I seeked as you probably 'seek'(or maybe expect?) now and did not find it at the end as you don't see them now (probably) , and that's fine.
But then i realized that evidence does not mean proof and things changed.

This is common answer among Christians who were at some point in life Atheists.
Lately Richard Dawkins debated former Atheist and now a Christian Ayaan Hirsi Ali.It is very obvious in what she says as her expirience.

I wonder if Richard Dawkins would become one...

"Seek and you will find"*

Works every time if you have decided what
you're determined to find.

I asked a Mormon missionary how he could
believe such a ridiculous story.

He said he prayed until "god" told him it's all true.

* that's a bible- saying. Kinda selfvserving almost.

The corollary is, "beware getting what you ask for".

 

[Audie]

Not if you seek for evidence.I seeked as you probably 'seek'(or maybe expect?) now and did not find it at the end as you don't see them now (probably) , and that's fine.
But then i realized that evidence does not mean proof and things changed.

This is common answer among Christians who were at some point in life Atheists.
Lately Richard Dawkins debated former Atheist and now a Christian Ayaan Hirsi Ali.It is very obvious in what she says as her expirience.

I wonder if Richard Dawkins would become one...

Since 99.999% of " atheists" who go all religious
grew up religious, fell away for a bit, then relapse.
I checked on your example.

Sure enough. Moslem- "atheist"- christian.

Forgot to mention that?

Too bad we didn't get a polygraph on her, have her curse God. IF one of those recently " ex" theists were asked to,
few i think, would do it. And then the p- graph would
betray that they still believe.

Yiu c


You could hardly pick worse " proof".

 

[Dimi95]

"Seek and you will find"*

Works every time if you have decided what
you're determined to find.

I asked a Mormon missionary how he could
believe such a ridiculous story.

He said he prayed until "god" told him it's all true.

* that's a bible- saying. Kinda selfvserving almost.

The corollary is, "beware getting what you ask for".

I don't know how talking about Mormon is any relevant , but ok.

 

[paarsurrey]

Since 99.999% of " atheists" who go all religious
grew up religious, fell away for a bit, then relapse.
I checked on your example.

Sure enough. Moslem- "atheist"- christian.

Forgot to mention that?

Too bad we didn't get a polygraph on her, have her curse God. IF one of those recently " ex" theists were asked to,
few i think, would do it. And then the p- graph would
betray that they still believe.

Yiu c


You could hardly pick worse " proof".

Western Atheism people are flip side of, one must day, untrue Pauline-Christendom, as I understand, please, right?
They mean they don't believe the Pauline concept/creed of mythical(dying-rising, ascending) Jesus-God, so they remain "cultural-Christian" as Richard Dawkins is, right, please?

Regards

 

[Audie]

I don't know how talking about Mormon is any relevant , but ok.

More relevant than bringing up Dawkins.

Exactly on point, actually.

You talk of seeking evidence as if you weren't
doing confirmation bias- which works for anything you
choose to believe.

But if your only comment is how you missed the obvious,
never mind further response. Bye.

 

[Dimi95]

More relevant than bringing up Dawkins.

Exactly on point, actually.

You talk of seeking evidence as if you weren't
doing confirmation bias- which works for anything you
choose to believe.

But if your only comment is how you missed the obvious,
never mind further response. Bye.

I mentioned only the example.I was not interested in her belief history.It is the first time that i hear of her name in that debate.. I don't know everyone.What i found about her as an Atheist is her connection to the 'four horseman'.
That's it,I did not speculate anything else.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evolution not God​

I mentioned only the example.I was not interested in her belief history.It is the first time that i hear of her name in that debate.. I don't know everyone.What i found about her as an Atheist is her connection to the 'four horseman'.
That's it,I did not speculate anything else.

'four horseman'

Four horsemen of Atheism are said to be following:

"In 2007, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett filmed a landmark discussion about modern atheism. The video went viral. Now in print for the first time, the transcript of their conversation is illuminated by new essays from three of the original participants and an introduction by Stephen Fry.
At the dawn of the new atheist movement, the thinkers who became known as “the four horsemen,” the heralds of religion's unraveling—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett—sat down together over cocktails. What followed was a rigorous, pathbreaking, and enthralling exchange, which has been viewed millions of times since it was first posted on YouTube. This is intellectual inquiry at its best: exhilarating, funny, and unpredictable, sincere and probing, reminding us just how varied and colorful the threads of modern atheism are. "

Amazon.ca

Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Evolution not God

I mentioned only the example.I was not interested in her belief history.It is the first time that i hear of her name in that debate.. I don't know everyone.What i found about her as an Atheist is her connection to the 'four horseman'.
That's it,I did not speculate anything else.

'four horseman'

Four horsemen of Atheism are said to be following:

"In 2007, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett filmed a landmark discussion about modern atheism. The video went viral. Now in print for the first time, the transcript of their conversation is illuminated by new essays from three of the original participants and an introduction by Stephen Fry.
At the dawn of the new atheist movement, the thinkers who became known as “the four horsemen,” the heralds of religion's unraveling—Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett—sat down together over cocktails. What followed was a rigorous, pathbreaking, and enthralling exchange, which has been viewed millions of times since it was first posted on YouTube. This is intellectual inquiry at its best: exhilarating, funny, and unpredictable, sincere and probing, reminding us just how varied and colorful the threads of modern atheism are. "
Amazon.ca
Right, please?

I happened to read, though I have never felt an attraction towards non-belief , by high recommendation of an Atheism friend with a guarantee on a debate forum to read "God is not Great " by one of the horsemen Christopher Hitchens and after reading it three times, I found that either his horse "was" lame/limping or its rider was not trained, right, please?:
29:42 The case of those who take helpers beside Allah is like unto the case of the spider, who makes for herself a house; and surely the frailest of all houses is the house of the spider, if they but knew!

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Right?

Regards
____________________
Original Arabic narration/text from Muhammad's time, below:-
29:42 مَثَلُ الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّخَذُوۡا مِنۡ دُوۡنِ اللّٰہِ اَوۡلِیَآءَ کَمَثَلِ الۡعَنۡکَبُوۡتِ ۖۚ اِتَّخَذَتۡ بَیۡتًا ؕ وَاِنَّ اَوۡہَنَ الۡبُیُوۡتِ لَبَیۡتُ الۡعَنۡکَبُوۡتِ ۘ لَوۡ کَانُوۡا یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ ﴿۴۲

 

[Valjean]

The idea of an invisible personage manipulating the world remains unevidenced. The claim has not, as yet, met its burden. It remains epistemically equivalent to a claim of leprechauns or Valkyries.
Numerous arguments have been put forth to support the idea. All are either factually of logically faulty.